lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:49:20 -0800
Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 23:22 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:55:43 -0800
> > Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, maxblocks, in bitmap_search_next_usable_block(), is the end block
> > > number of the range to search, not the lengh of the range. maxblocks
> > > get passed to ext2_find_next_zero_bit(), where it expecting to take the
> > > _size_ of the range to search instead...
> > >
> > > Something like this: (this is not a patch)
> > > @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ bitmap_search_next_usable_block(ext2_grp
> > > ext2_grpblk_t next;
> > >
> > > - next = ext2_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks, start);
> > > + next = ext2_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks-start + 1, start);
> > > if (next >= maxblocks)
> > > return -1;
> > > return next;
> > > }
> >
> > yes, the `size' arg to find_next_zero_bit() represents the number of bits
> > to scan at `offset'.
> >
> > So I think your change is correctish. But we don't want the "+ 1", do we?
> >
> I think we still need the "+1", maxblocks here is the ending block of
> the reservation window, so the number of bits to scan =end-start+1.
>
> > If we're right then this bug could cause the code to scan off the end of the
> > bitmap. But it won't explain Hugh's bug, because of the if (next >= maxblocks).
> >
>
> Yeah.. at first I thought it might be related, then, thinked it over,
> the bug only makes the bits to scan larger, so if find_next_zero_bit()
> returns something off the end of bitmap, that is fine, it just
> indicating that there is no free bit left in the rest of bitmap, which
> is expected behavior. So bitmap_search_next_usable_block() fail is the
> expected. It will move on to next block group and try to create a new
> reservation window there.

I wonder why it's never oopsed. Perhaps there's always a zero in there for
some reason.

> That does not explain the repeated reservation window add and remove
> behavior Huge has reported.

I spent quite some time comparing with ext3. I'm a bit stumped and I'm
suspecting that the simplistic porting the code is now OK, but something's
just wrong.

I assume that the while (1) loop in ext3_try_to_allocate_with_rsv() has
gone infinite. I don't see why, but more staring is needed.

What lock protects the fields in struct ext[234]_reserve_window from being
concurrently modified by two CPUs? None, it seems. Ditto
ext[234]_reserve_window_node. i_mutex will cover it for write(), but not
for pageout over a file hole. If we end up with a zero- or negative-sized
window then odd things might happen.

> > btw, how come try_to_extend_reservation() uses spin_trylock?
>
> Since locks are all allocated from reservation window, when ext3
> multiple blocks allocation was added, we added try_to_extend_reservation
> () to ext3, which trying to extend the reservation window size to at
> least match the number of blocks to allocate. So we have better chance
> to allocating multiple blocks from the window at a time.
>
> Since all the multiple block allocation is based on best effort basis,
> the same applied to try_to_extend_reservation(). It seems no need to
> wait for the reservation tree lock if it's not avaible at that moment.
>

I suspect that was not a good idea - it has added rather different
behaviour in the once-in-a-million case.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-16 10:23    [W:0.165 / U:8.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site