On 07/12/2011 11:20 AM, Christian Brunner wrote:
> 2011/6/7 Josef Bacik <jo...@redhat.com>:
>> On 06/06/2011 09:39 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
>>> On fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:46:10 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>>> I got a lot of these when running stress.sh on my test box
>>>> This is because use_block_rsv() is having to do a
>>>> reserve_metadata_bytes(), which shouldn't happen as we should have
>>>> reserved enough space for those operations to complete.  This is
>>>> happening because use_block_rsv() will call get_block_rsv(), which if
>>>> root->ref_cows is set (which is the case on all fs roots) we will use
>>>> trans->block_rsv, which will only have what the current transaction
>>>> starter had reserved.
>>>> What needs to be done instead is we need to have a block reserve that
>>>> any reservation that is done at create time for these inodes is migrated
>>>> to this special reserve, and then when you run the delayed inode items
>>>> stuff you set trans->block_rsv to the special block reserve so the
>>>> accounting is all done properly.
>>>> This is just off the top of my head, there may be a better way to do it,
>>>> I've not actually looked that the delayed inode code at all.
>>>> I would do this myself but I have a ever increasing list of shit to do
>>>> so will somebody pick this up and fix it please?  Thanks,
>>> Sorry, it's my miss.
>>> I forgot to set trans->block_rsv to global_block_rsv, since we have migrated
>>> the space from trans_block_rsv to global_block_rsv.
>>> I'll fix it soon.
>> There is another problem, we're failing xfstest 204.  I tried making
>> reserve_metadata_bytes commit the transaction regardless of whether or
>> not there were pinned bytes but the test just hung there.  Usually it
>> takes 7 seconds to run and I ctrl+c'ed it after a couple of minutes.
>> 204 just creates a crap ton of files, which is what is killing us.
>> There needs to be a way to start flushing delayed inode items so we can
>> reclaim the space they are holding onto so we don't get enospc, and it
>> needs to be better than just committing the transaction because that is
>> dog slow.  Thanks,
>> Josef
> Is there a solution for this?
> I'm running a kernel with all the btrfs patches from 3.0rc7
> (except the pluging). When starting a ceph rebuild on the btrfs
> volumes I get a lot of warnings from block_rsv_use_bytes in
> use_block_rsv:

Yeah there is something wonky going on here, I meant to take a look this
week but I will go ahead and look into it now.  I have a way to
reproduce it thankfully, but I may have you run my patches when I get
somewhere.  Thanks,

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

Reply via email to