My patch to properly count outstanding extents wrt MAX_EXTENT_SIZE introduced a
regression when re-dirtying already dirty areas. We have logic in split to make
sure we are taking the largest space into account but didn't have it for merge,
so it was sometimes making us think we were turning a tiny extent into a huge
extent, when in reality we already had a huge extent and needed to use the other
side in our logic. This fixes the regression that was reported by a user on
list. Thanks,
Reported-by: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 91a87f5..97b601b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -1592,7 +1592,12 @@ static void btrfs_merge_extent_hook(struct inode *inode,
return;
old_size = other->end - other->start + 1;
- new_size = old_size + (new->end - new->start + 1);
+ if (old_size < (new->end - new->start + 1))
+ old_size = (new->end - new->start + 1);
+ if (new->start > other->start)
+ new_size = new->end - other->start + 1;
+ else
+ new_size = other->end - new->start + 1;
/* we're not bigger than the max, unreserve the space and go */
if (new_size <= BTRFS_MAX_EXTENT_SIZE) {
--
1.9.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
