Messages in this thread | | | From | "Wilcox, Matthew R" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v5 00/22] Rewrite XIP code and add XIP support to ext4 | Date | Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:12:43 +0000 |
| |
Are you hitting the same problems with ext4 fsck that we did? Version 1.42.8 reports spurious corruption. From the 1.42.9 changelog:
* Fixed a regression introduced in 1.42.8 which would cause e2fsck to erroneously report uninitialized extents past i_size to be invalid.
________________________________________ From: Dave Chinner [david@fromorbit.com] Sent: January 23, 2014 1:01 AM To: Wilcox, Matthew R Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org; linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/22] Rewrite XIP code and add XIP support to ext4
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:24:18PM -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > This series of patches add support for XIP to ext4. Unfortunately, > it turns out to be necessary to rewrite the existing XIP support code > first due to races that are unfixable in the current design. > > Since v4 of this patchset, I've improved the documentation, fixed a > couple of warnings that a newer version of gcc emitted, and fixed a > bug where we would read/write the wrong address for I/Os that were not > aligned to PAGE_SIZE. > > I've dropped the PMD fault patch from this set since there are some > places where we would need to split a PMD page and there's no way to do > that right now. In its place, I've added a patch which attempts to add > support for unwritten extents. I'm still in two minds about this; on the > one hand, it's clearly a win for reads and writes. On the other hand, > it adds a lot of complexity, and it probably isn't a win for pagefaults.
I ran this through xfstests, but ext4 in default configuration fails too many of the tests with filesystem corruption and other cascading failures on the quick group tests (generic/013, generic/070, generic/075, generic/091, etc) for me to be able to tell if adding MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o xip" adds any problems or not....
XIP definitely caused generic/001 to fail, but other than that I can't really tell. Still, it looks like it functions enough to be able to add XFS support on top of. I'll get back to you with that ;)
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
| |