RE: [PATCH v5 00/22] Rewrite XIP code and add XIP support to ext4

[Wilcox, Matthew R]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: January 23, 2014 1:01 AM
To: Wilcox, Matthew R
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/