In addition to regular write shouldn't __do_fault and do_wp_page also
calls this if they are called on file backed mappings?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:38:03PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 09/20/2011 10:25 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
In addition to regular write shouldn't __do_fault and do_wp_page also
calls this if they are called on file backed mappings?
Probably not do_wp_page since it always creates
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 08:26:09AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
It shows EXT[3,4]_APPEND_FL should be inherited from their parent, is this
the standard?
I have no idea actually, it was just failing on xfstest 79 and when I
took out the inheritance thing it passed so I took the test to
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 05:58:47PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
Now SCRATCH_DEV is derived from SCRATCH_DEV_POOL.
Moved code to delete and scan block device to common.rc and
updated README.
Can you resend the whole patch? Note that xfstests is up to test 262
in the meantime, so it will also
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 01:38:38PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
please please fix your mail client not to wrap long lines ...
And while we're at it please fix yours to not full quote :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
What btrfs does for the btree inode is insane, and I'm pretty sure I
already complained about it. It really needs to stop registering that
inode with the writeback code and just driver it manually. Same as
other filesystems do for their micro-managed metadata.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 02:28:54PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
Create snapshots in various ways, modify the data around the block and
file boundaries and verify the data integrity.
The test itselt looks good enough, but I have some comments on the
pool infrastructure changes. I also think they
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 02:28:55PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
To verify the btrfs de-fragmentation does not fail.
Any reason you can't simply fold btrfs defragmentation testing into
the existing common defragmentation test (218)?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
+if [ $dev_removed == 1 ]; then
+ umount $SCRATCH_MNT
+_devmgt_add ${DEVHTL}
+fi
messy indendation.
+ btrfs filesystem balance $SCRATCH_MNT || _fail balance failed
+ #btrfs filesystem show $SCRATCH_DEV 21 | egrep devid |awk '{
+ # if ( $6 == 0.00 ) {
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
- When I run ceph with btrfs snaps disabled, the situation is getting
slightly better. I can run an OSD for about 3 days without problems,
but then again the load increases. This time, I can see that the
ceph-osd
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Andres, can you check with Chris that the btrfs changes made it to
his tree? The core lseek changes from Andi are in mainline now, but
I think these bits are better off going through Chrises btrfs tree.
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 10:49:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
Don't need the i_mutex for
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 11:08:55AM +0800, WuBo wrote:
This test is a stress test. It creates a set of threads for coping small
files
into disk. I use a 2G disk for test, the ENOSPC arises usually but the disk
is
not full under kenerl 3.0 with intel64.
It seems like you really want to use
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 12:12:07PM +0300, sly...@gmail.com wrote:
bdev=/dev/ubda
btr_root=/btr
/mkfs.btrfs $bdev
mount $bdev $btr_root
mkdir $btr_root/subvols/
cd $btr_root/subvols/
/btrfs su cr foo
/btrfs su cr bar
mount $bdev -osubvol=subvols/foo
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 08:07:01PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Looks like bio_add_page() is failing and we're getting the enomem from
there. LVM is only letting us put one page in each bio.
Yes, at the moment all bio based DM targets only allow single page I/O.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 11:38:41AM +0800, WuBo wrote:
Changes v1-v2:
- Make test-set support generic
This patch set add a group of reservation space test. Especailly for btrfs.
It includes three parts: copy workload, prealloc and write posix.
For test 273, I hope it's usefull for Josef's
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 10:06:55AM +0100, Arne Jansen wrote:
That's... unexpected. I guess this won't change with 3.3? For 3.3 I have
to rework that part from scrub to account for Chris' bigblocks. If it can
wait that long I'd prefer to fix both at once. Chris?
device mapper has always been
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:29:31AM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
Am 09.11.2011 08:48, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 08:07:01PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Looks like bio_add_page() is failing and we're getting the enomem from
there. LVM is only letting us put one page in each
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:54:13AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Yeah, only that nobody calls that fsync() automatically if the fd is
O_SYNC if I'm right. But maybe calling fdatasync() on the range which was
fallocated from sys_fallocate() if the fd is O_SYNC would do the trick for
most
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:39:15PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
This would work fine with XFS and be equivalent to what it does for
O_DSYNC now. But I'd rather see every filesystem do the right thing
and make sure the update actually is on disk when doing O_(D)SYNC
operations.
OK, I don't
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:57:55PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
I agree with you that userspace shouldn't have to call fsync. What I
meant is that sys_fallocate() or do_fallocate() can call
generic_write_sync(file, pos, len), and that would be completely
transparent to userspace.
That's different
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:42:04AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
This is an alternative fix:
I have already applied your previous one. Can you rediff it ontop of
the current xfstests-dev tree?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:35:45PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
writeback_in_progress() is very simple, and we will use
writeback_in_progress()
in the module, so make it inline.
Modules don't really have a business looking at this information. I'd
prefer to keep it static in fs-writeback.c.
--
To
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:35:47PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
The reason the deadlock is that:
TaskBtrfs-cleaner
umount()
down_write(s-s_umount)
close_ctree()
wait for the end of
btrfs-cleaner
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 07:06:40PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
I can't see why you need the writeout when the trylocks fails. Umount
needs to take care of writing out all pending file data anyway, so doing
it from the cleaner thread in addition doesn't sound like it would help.
umount invokes
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 10:56:29AM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
_require_user only checks if the qa user exists in /etc/passwd. It may exist
though still not be able to execute anything (e.g. with a /bin/false shell).
_user_do cannot determine failure to execute the given command, as it uses
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 04:16:45PM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
I agree. I saw this and thought I'd adapt the (sometimes strange)
predominant bash programming style:
Maybe the IRIX su command didn't support -c. I'll put your patch in
as-is.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 09:40:35AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
To reproduce the bug:
# touch /mnt/tmp
# stat /mnt/tmp | grep Change
Change: 2011-12-09 09:32:23.412105981 +0800
# chattr +i /mnt/tmp
# stat /mnt/tmp | grep Change
Change: 2011-12-09 09:32:43.198105295 +0800
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:19:40AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
3) sync - this is not as obvious. sync doesn't mean anything than start
writing back dirty data to the fs, and returns before it's done. For btrfs
what that means is we run through _every_ inode that has delalloc pages
associated
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:42:55AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
We can record the smallest alignment while scanning the devices and just
use that. In general 4K is good enough, although some other database
company might be more worried about smaller numbers.
How is access at 512 byte granularity
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:26:15AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
With O_DIRECT the writeback rates are very reasonable. I'll work up a
way to pass the barrier down from the guest to btrfs to force logging of
updated metadata when required.
Barriers are implemented in the guest kernel using queue
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:28:54PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
When it updates qcow2 metadata or when the guest issues a barrier. It's
relatively new. I have a patch that introduces cache=volatile somewhere.
qcow2 does not issues any fsyncs by itself, it only passes throught the
guests ones.
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:36:15PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
Shouldn't it do that then? What's the point of fsyncing guest data if
qcow2 metadata is volatile?
Not my territory - but in the end getting qcow2 as-is solid in face
of crashes will be an uphill battel - I'd rather recommend not
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 03:00:38PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
+void dio_end_io(struct bio *bio, int error)
+{
+ struct dio *dio = bio-bi_private;
+
+ if (dio-is_async)
+ dio_bio_end_aio(bio, error);
+ else
+ dio_bio_end_io(bio, error);
+}
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 03:00:13PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
V1-V2: Check to see if our current ppos is = i_size after a short DIO read,
just in case it was actually a short read and we need to just return.
This is similar to what already happens in the write case. If we have a short
read
+struct btrfs_dio_private {
+ struct inode *inode;
+ u64 logical_offset;
+ u32 *csums;
+ void *private;
+};
+
+static void btrfs_endio_direct(struct bio *bio, int err)
+{
+ struct bio_vec *bvec_end = bio-bi_io_vec + bio-bi_vcnt - 1;
+ struct bio_vec *bvec =
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:40:53PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
V1-V2
-Use __blockdev_direct_IO instead of helper
-Use KM_IRQ0 for kmap instead of KM_USER0
I still don't think this is correct. The completion can come from
softirq and hardirq context, and possibly even normal process context.
You
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:31:45AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
AIO's aio_complete does kmap with KM_IRQ0/1 and it gets called in the same
context as the btrfs completion handler, so if it's ok for aio_complete it
should be ok for btrfs right? Thanks,
aio_complete does a spin_lock_irqsave before
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 03:21:50PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
+ if (!mapping-a_ops-readpage)
+ return -ENOEXEC;
I don't think there's any instance of address_space operations without
a readpage method in btrfs.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 03:22:30PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
the ctime of file has not been updated when I create a link for it.
Steps to reproduce:
# touch file1
# stat -c %Z file1
1273592239
# link flink1 file1
# stat -c %Z file1
1273592239 -- have not been updated
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 04:24:50PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
V1-V2:
-Changed dio_end_io to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
-Removed the own_submit blockdev dio helper
-Removed the boundary change
patch version changelogs go below the --- header so they don't go into
the commit message. Also makes reading
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Btrfs cannot handle having logically non-contiguous requests submitted. For
example if you have
Logical: [0-4095][HOLE][8192-12287]
Physical: [0-4095] [4096-8191]
Normally the DIO code would put these into the same BIO's.
Thanks! I've commit both patches.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please give your patches some semi-resonable subject line.
fs/btrfs/super.c |2
fs/buffer.c|5 +
fs/ext3/super.c|2
fs/ext4/super.c|2
fs/mpage.c |7 +
fs/ocfs2/super.c |3
fs/super.c
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:24:04AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Since BTRFS can fallback on buffered reads after having done some direct
reads,
we need to make sure to invalidate any pages that we may have read by doing
buffered IO. This shouldn't have shown up as a visible user problem, it's
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:07:23PM +0200, Johannes Hirte wrote:
I think you're wrong here. I've run into a kernel null pointer dereference at
this point with a NFS exported btrfs filesystem:
Looks like you've applied the patch to a far too old kernel. It can't
be NULL for quite a while
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:11:20PM +0200, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Looks like you've applied the patch to a far too old kernel. It can't
be NULL for quite a while already.
You're the expert, but it looks like it could be null in 2.6.34 like he
says. I'm just looking at vfs_fsync_range()
What all this fails to explain is that this actually is useful for?
Your series adds lots of crappy code, entiely stupid interactions with a
handfull filesystems, but no actual users.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:19:39PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
[PATCH V3 3/8] Cleancache: core ops functions and configuration
Cleancache core ops functions and configuration
NACK for code that just adds random hooks all over VFS and even
individual FS code, does an EXPORT_SYMBOL but
This seems like iteration 66 of the ill fated mobling readahead crap.
Please go to linux-fsdevel to define a proper interface instead of
your per-filesystem hacks. I had hoped Arjan got it after the last big
flameware, but it seems like you're only moving from one target to the
next.
NACK in
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 07:00:33AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 7/19/2010 1:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
This seems like iteration 66 of the ill fated mobling readahead crap.
I think you need to actually look at what this patch does before
rendering this judgment; something you
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 06:58:03AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
CHRISTOPH AND ANDREW, if you disagree and your concerns have
not been resolved, please speak up.
Anything that need modification of a normal non-shared fs is utterly
broken and you'll get a clear NAK, so the propsal before is a
Something is deeply wrong here. Raw block device access has a 1:1
mapping between logical and physical block numbers. They really should
never be non-contiguous.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:53:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
This was a request from the systemd guys. They need a quick and easy way to
get
all devices attached to a Btrfs filesystem in order to check if any of the
disks
are SSD for...something, I didn't ask :). I've tested this with
: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Subject: [PATCH] writeback: always use sb-s_bdi for writeback purposes
We currently use struct backing_dev_info for various different purposes.
Originally it was introduced to describe a backing device which includes
an unplug and congestion function and various bits
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:18:08PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 29-09-10 10:19:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
---
From: Christoph Hellwig h...@lst.de
Subject: [PATCH] writeback: always use sb-s_bdi for writeback purposes
...
The one exception for now is the block device filesystem
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:04:31AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:25, Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
Second question is why is checking in /sys a big deal, would ??you prefer an
interface like we did for alignment in libblkid?
It's about knowing what's
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:38:07AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
No. For one thing we don't need any exception for correctnes alone -
even the block device variant would work fine with the default case.
Here I don't agree. If you don't have some kind of exception, sb-s_bdi
for both block and
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 06:50:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
There's no need to lock a normal 32-bit variable for readers.
Ok, but will need a memory barrier instead?
Isn't spin_unlock supposed to be one? I'll need some of the locking
experts to shime in.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
index 2953e9f..9f04478 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -1964,8 +1964,14 @@ void btrfs_add_delayed_iput(struct inode *inode)
struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = BTRFS_I(inode)-root-fs_info;
struct delayed_iput *delayed;
- if
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 05:28:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
This patchset fixes some problems with the ENOSPC code for block groups, but
more importantly it fixes a huge ENOSPC regression that's occured. With my
fs_mark test
fs_mark -d /mnt/btrfs-test -D 512 -t 16 -n 4096 -F -S0
on a
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:57:18AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
(which I did anyway because of my bug). So maybe the right idea is to rip out
my logical offset tests altogether and fix dio so we treat buffer_boundary()
like gospel. That way Btrfs can get what it needs without having this weird
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 09:42:06PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
btrfs misses this:
+ .migratepage= btree_migratepage,
It's a bug that can trigger upstream too (not only with THP) if there
are hugepage allocations (like while incrasing nr_hugepages). Chris
already fixed it with
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:12:22PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
I just wrote above that it can happen upstream without THP. It's not
THP related at all. THP is the consumer, this is a problem in migrate
that will trigger as well with migrate_pages or all other possible
migration APIs.
If
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 01:46:02PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
For the metadata blocks, btrfs gets into a problematic lock inversion
where it needs to record that a block has been written so that it will
be properly recowed when someone tries to change it again.
Basically the rule for
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:29:14PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Scary stuff, so WB_SYNC_NONE wouldn't submit the dirty part of the
page down for I/O, so that it's all clean after wait_on_page_writeback
returns? (well of course unless the dirty bit was set again)
It might not if we have lock
=== What do subvolumes look like? ===
All the user sees are directories. They act like any other directory acts,
with
a few exceptions
1) You cannot hardlink between subvolumes. This is because subvolumes have
their own inode numbers and such, think of them as seperate mounts in this
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:27:56AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
A property of NFS fileshandles is that they must be stable across
server reboots. Is this anon dev_t used as part of the NFS
filehandle and if so how can you guarantee that it is stable?
It's just as stable as a real dev_t in the
Care to write a xfstests test for this behaviour?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:29:41PM +0800, Zheng Liu wrote:
Hi all,
This patch series tries to remove a sanity check in fallocate from specific
filesystems because vfs has already checked it.
I am not very familiar with why we need to do this duplicated check. Please
let
me know if I
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:08:58PM +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote:
This is a btrfs specific scratch test checking the backref walker. It
creates a file system with compressed and uncompressed data extents, picks
files randomly and uses filefrag to get their extents. It then asks the
btrfs utility
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 03:35:20PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
We failed to get fsck program to check the btrfs file system, it is
because btrfs uses its independent check tool which is named btrfsck
to check the file system, so the common checker -- fsck -- could not
find it, and reported there is
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:55:03AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
We had a bug in btrfs which can be triggered by this test.
Thanks, applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 07:39:20PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
When I ran xfstests, 251 got failed cause cp -axT did not work as wish:
cp: cannot overwrite directory `/mnt/scratch/1' with non-directory
With this patch, 251 has passed.
Why would cp give that message with a missing /?
I'm not
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 04:27:49PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
+_runtest()
+{
+ $progs_dir/runtest.sh $defrag_args $SCRATCH_MNT $SCRATCH_DEV
please put the actual tests into test cases themselves instead of
calling out into shell scripts under src. If you have common code
shared between multiple
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 12:53:21PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 12:30:42PM +0200, Nikos Voutsinas wrote:
It's quite old, but what was this about;
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/4487
Thanks, the patch looks ok and works as expected.
Thanks, applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 04:27:48PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
Btrfs progs has a defragment tool, so we can test 218 on btrfs now.
Thanks, applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Thanks, applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
time
updates into page_mkwrite for those who have it so that should satisfy btrfs
and
make it not a big deal to check the file_update_time() return code in the
generic fault path. Thanks,
Any reason that atime updates ignore the return value?
Otherwise looks fine,
Reviewed-by: Christoph
Can you explain why the device error counters should be in a filesystem
instead of generic block layer code?
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 04:06:07PM +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote:
Changes v1-v2:
- Remove restriction that BTRFS_IOC_GET_DEVICE_STATS is a privileged
operation
- Cast u64 to unsigned
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 09:05:10AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
It is better that update i_size in endio, I think. because during endio, we
are sure that
the data is flushed into the disk successfully, and can update i_size at
ease. and if the
error happens when flushing the data into the
Isn't this the problem again the btrfs uses different assignments for
st_dev than s_dev? I don't even want to think about a mess like this
before that is fixed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 02:37:56PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
This makes the implementation simpler by stuffing the struct on
the driver and just letting the driver iinsert it and remove it
onto the sb list. This avoids the kzalloc() completely.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:48:05PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Any further advice? I'll submit a v3 for RFC with some small change
for a fix for stress testing identified by Filipe Manana.
The advice is to stop setting different dev_t values for different
files in btrfs.
--
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 01:37:48PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
After the commit 7fc34a62ca4434a79c68e23e70ed26111b7a4cf8 (titled
mm/msync.c: sync only the requested range in msync()), our fsync
callback can be called with a range that covers only part of the
file and not the whole file
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 07:52:33PM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
Point taken Christoph, this isn't specific to msync nor impossible to
happen before 7fc34a62ca4434a79c68e23e70ed26111b7a4cf8.
I'll update the commit log to reflect that.
Thanks for looking.
Btw, if you have an easy enough
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:08:22AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
Pretty obvious difference: avgrq-sz. btrfs is doing 512k IOs, ext4
and XFS are doing is doing 128k IOs because that's the default block
device readahead size. 'blockdev --setra 1024 /dev/sdd' before
mounting the filesystem will
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 10:01:58AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
Do we still need maximums at all?
I don't think we do. At least on any system I work with I have to
increase them to get good performance without any adverse effect on
throttling.
So can we just remove the limit on max_sectors and the
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 01:55:35PM -0700, Samer Al-Kiswany wrote:
Btrfs seems to achieve around 100k fsycs/second, which makes me believe it
is not touching the disk during these fsyncs.
After looking at the code, it seems indeed that fsync adds the inode to the
current transaction but does
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:52:18PM +0100, Cyril Scetbon wrote:
oh cool to know !
It's weird that the man page says limits are never enforced on the superuser
(nor are they enforced for group and project ID zero)
http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/en/man8/xfs_quota.8.html
This
With the new iov_iter infrastructure that supprots direct I/O to kernel
pages please get rid of the -readpage hack first. I'm still utterly
disapoined that this crap ever got merged.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:22:35PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
Here's a nice little bit of insanity I put together in that direction --
consider it a discussion point more than a patch. It does two things:
- Uses an ITER_BVEC iov_iter to do direct_IO for swap_readpage. This makes
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:15:31AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
Sorry for the noise, looks like Christoph got back to me on the previous RFC
just before I sent this out -- disregard this for now.
If the NFS people are fine with this version I'd certainly welcome it as
a first step. Additional
What's the test coverage for this? xfstest generic/192 tests that
atime is persisted over remounts, which we had a bug with when XFS
used to have a lazy atime implementation somewhat similar to the
proposal.
We should have something similar for c/mtime as well. Also a test to
ensure timestamps
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:59:21PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
We needed to preserve update_time() because btrfs wants to have a
special btrfs_root_readonly() check; otherwise we could drop the
update_time() inode operation entirely.
Can't btrfs just set the immutable flag on every inode that
101 - 200 of 661 matches
Mail list logo
