The patch below does not apply to the 5.15-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-5.15.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 1c320d8e92925bb7615f83a7b6e3f402a5c2ca63 # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to 'stable@vger.kernel.org' --in-reply-to '2025081855-sensation-survivor-0dde@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.15.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 1c320d8e92925bb7615f83a7b6e3f402a5c2ca63 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Baokun Li libaokun1@huawei.com Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 21:03:20 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ext4: fix zombie groups in average fragment size lists
Groups with no free blocks shouldn't be in any average fragment size list. However, when all blocks in a group are allocated(i.e., bb_fragments or bb_free is 0), we currently skip updating the average fragment size, which means the group isn't removed from its previous s_mb_avg_fragment_size[old] list.
This created "zombie" groups that were always skipped during traversal as they couldn't satisfy any block allocation requests, negatively impacting traversal efficiency.
Therefore, when a group becomes completely full, bb_avg_fragment_size_order is now set to -1. If the old order was not -1, a removal operation is performed; if the new order is not -1, an insertion is performed.
Fixes: 196e402adf2e ("ext4: improve cr 0 / cr 1 group scanning") CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Baokun Li libaokun1@huawei.com Reviewed-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Reviewed-by: Zhang Yi yi.zhang@huawei.com Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250714130327.1830534-11-libaokun1@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o tytso@mit.edu
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c index 6d98f2a5afc4..72b20fc52bbf 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c @@ -841,30 +841,30 @@ static void mb_update_avg_fragment_size(struct super_block *sb, struct ext4_group_info *grp) { struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb); - int new_order; + int new, old;
- if (!test_opt2(sb, MB_OPTIMIZE_SCAN) || grp->bb_fragments == 0) + if (!test_opt2(sb, MB_OPTIMIZE_SCAN)) return;
- new_order = mb_avg_fragment_size_order(sb, - grp->bb_free / grp->bb_fragments); - if (new_order == grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order) + old = grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order; + new = grp->bb_fragments == 0 ? -1 : + mb_avg_fragment_size_order(sb, grp->bb_free / grp->bb_fragments); + if (new == old) return;
- if (grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order != -1) { - write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[ - grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]); + if (old >= 0) { + write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[old]); list_del(&grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_node); - write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[ - grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]); + write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[old]); + } + + grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order = new; + if (new >= 0) { + write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[new]); + list_add_tail(&grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_node, + &sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size[new]); + write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[new]); } - grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order = new_order; - write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[ - grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]); - list_add_tail(&grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_node, - &sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size[grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]); - write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[ - grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]); }
/*