Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 22:02, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 08:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote: >>> -EXPERIMENTAL- >>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, >>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: raid56: fix race between merge_bio and rbio_orig_end_io

(Add Jérôme Carretero.) Thanks, -liubo On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > We're not allowed to take any new bios to rbio->bio_list in > rbio_orig_end_io(), otherwise we may get merged with more bios and > rbio->bio_list is not empty. > > This should only happens in

[PATCH] Btrfs: raid56: fix race between merge_bio and rbio_orig_end_io

We're not allowed to take any new bios to rbio->bio_list in rbio_orig_end_io(), otherwise we may get merged with more bios and rbio->bio_list is not empty. This should only happens in error-out cases, the normal path of recover and full stripe write have already set RBIO_RMW_LOCKED_BIT to disable

RE: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

> -Original Message- > From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Austin S. Hemmelgarn > Sent: Friday, 8 December 2017 11:51 PM > To: Anand Jain ; linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs:

Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection

On 12/08/2017 09:24 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: >> On 12/06/2017 05:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> Jon noticed that I had a typo in my _ASM_KPROBE_ERROR_INJECT macro. I went >>> to >>> figure out why the compiler didn't catch it and

Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:38:43AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > cmpxchg is for replacing a known object in a store - it's not really > > > intended for doing initial inserts after a lookup tells us there is > > > nothing in the store. The radix tree "insert only if empty" makes > > > sense

Re: Lockdep is less useful than it was

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:14:38AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > At the moment, the radix tree actively disables the RCU checking that > enabling lockdep would give us. It has to, because it has no idea what > lock protects any individual access to the radix tree. The XArray can > use the RCU

Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:35:07PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > I'm sorry to hear that.. If I were you, I would also get > > annoyed. And.. thanks for explanation. > > > > But, I think assigning lock classes properly and checking > > relationship of

Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 12/06/2017 05:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Jon noticed that I had a typo in my _ASM_KPROBE_ERROR_INJECT macro. I went > > to > > figure out why the compiler didn't catch it and it's because it was not used > > anywhere. I

Re: Lockdep is less useful than it was

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:27:17AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > So if you are adding complexity to the kernel with the argument, > "lockdep will save us", I'm with Dave --- it's just not a believable > argument. I think that's a gross misrepresentation of what I'm doing. At the moment, the

Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017, Byungchul Park wrote: > I'm sorry to hear that.. If I were you, I would also get > annoyed. And.. thanks for explanation. > > But, I think assigning lock classes properly and checking > relationship of the classes to detect deadlocks is reasonable. > > In my opinion about

Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection

On 12/06/2017 05:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Jon noticed that I had a typo in my _ASM_KPROBE_ERROR_INJECT macro. I went to > figure out why the compiler didn't catch it and it's because it was not used > anywhere. I had copied it from the trace blacklist code without understanding > where it was

Re: Lockdep is less useful than it was

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 02:38:03PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I think it was a mistake to force these on for everybody; they have a > much higher false-positive rate than the rest of lockdep, so as you say > forcing them on leads to fewer people using *any* of lockdep. > > The bug you're

[PATCH] btrfs: Improve btrfs_search_slot description

Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov --- fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 32 ++-- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c index 880f4f693263..1f001d31bda8 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c

[PATCH] btrfs: Rename bin_search -> btrfs_bin_search

Currently there are 2 function doing binary search on btrfs nodes: bin_search and btrfs_bin_search. The latter being a simple wrapper for the former. So eliminate the wrapper and just rename bin_search to btrfs_bin_search. No functional changes Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 08:51 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup copy. I like the concept, and actually think

[PATCH 2/2] btrfs: sink extent_write_full_page tree argument

The tree argument passed to extent_write_full_page is referenced from the page being passed to the same function. Since we already have enough information to get the reference, remove the function parameter. Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov --- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 5 ++---

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs: sink extent_write_locked_range tree parameter

This function is called only from submit_compressed_extents and the io tree being passed is always that of the inode. But we are also passing the inode, so just move getting the io tree pointer in extent_write_locked_range to simplify the signature. Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov

[PATCH 10/10] btrfs: avoid to access bvec table directly for a cloned bio

Commit 17347cec15f919901c90(Btrfs: change how we iterate bios in endio) mentioned that for dio the submitted bio may be fast cloned, we can't access the bvec table directly for a cloned bio, so use bio_get_first_bvec() to retrieve the 1st bvec. Cc: Chris Mason Cc: Josef Bacik

[PATCH 09/10] btrfs: avoid access to .bi_vcnt directly

BTRFS uses bio->bi_vcnt to figure out page numbers, this way becomes not correct once we start to enable multipage bvec. So use bio_nr_pages() to do that instead. Cc: Chris Mason Cc: Josef Bacik Cc: David Sterba Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 21:05, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-12-08 07:59, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年12月08日 20:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >>> On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount,

Re: [PATCH v5 0/3] Add cli and ioctl to deregister devices

On 2017-12-07 21:17, Duncan wrote: Anand Jain posted on Fri, 08 Dec 2017 08:51:43 +0800 as excerpted: On 12/07/2017 10:52 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-12-07 09:36, Anand Jain wrote: Add ability to deregister a or all devices. I have named this sub cmd as deregister, but I am open

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017-12-08 07:59, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 20:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup copy.

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 08:12 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 8.12.2017 12:33, Anand Jain wrote: On 12/08/2017 04:40 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: On  8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 20:51, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote: >> -EXPERIMENTAL- >> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, >> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup >> copy. > I like the concept, and

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 20:41, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 08:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年12月08日 19:48, Anand Jain wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017-12-08 02:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup copy. I like the concept, and actually think this should be default behavior on a filesystem

Re: [Question] Two variants of SB reads can we move into bio read instead ?

On 8.12.2017 12:27, Anand Jain wrote: > > David, > >  There are two variants of SB read, one using the device cache [1] >  and the other buffer head [2]. > >  [1] btrfs_read_disk_super() >  [2] btrfs_read_dev_super() > >  Patch, 6f60cbd3ae442cb35861bb522f388db123d42ec1 >   (btrfs: access

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 08:02 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 19:48, Anand Jain wrote: On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote: On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 09:17 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: >> -EXPERIMENTAL- >> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, >> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup >> copy. > > Just curious about in which

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 8.12.2017 12:33, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 04:40 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On  8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote: >>> -EXPERIMENTAL- >>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, >>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 19:48, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: > -EXPERIMENTAL- > As of now when primary

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 07:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote: On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental patch which

[bug report] btrfs: cleanup device states define BTRFS_DEV_STATE_IN_FS_METADATA

Hello Anand Jain, The patch 2dcfcdc43524: "btrfs: cleanup device states define BTRFS_DEV_STATE_IN_FS_METADATA" from Dec 4, 2017, leads to the following static checker warning: fs/btrfs/super.c:2007 btrfs_calc_avail_data_space() warn: test_bit() takes a bit number

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 18:39, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: >>> -EXPERIMENTAL- >>> As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, >>> this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 04:17 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup copy. Just curious about in which real world case

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 12/08/2017 04:40 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote: On 8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote: -EXPERIMENTAL- As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup copy. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain

Delivery Failure

- The message you sent to vhakonigroup.co.za/mashudu was rejected because it would exceed the quota for the mailbox. The subject of the message follows: Re:Start to earn 15k daily.So easy money

[Question] Two variants of SB reads can we move into bio read instead ?

David, There are two variants of SB read, one using the device cache [1] and the other buffer head [2]. [1] btrfs_read_disk_super() [2] btrfs_read_dev_super() Patch, 6f60cbd3ae442cb35861bb522f388db123d42ec1 (btrfs: access superblock via pagecache in scan_one_device) Embraced device

Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray

On 12/8/2017 4:25 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 01:45:52PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:22:16AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:06:34AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:06:48AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 8.12.2017 09:57, Anand Jain wrote: > -EXPERIMENTAL- > As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, > this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup > copy. > > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain > --- > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |

Assalamu`Alaikum.

Greetings from Dr. mohammad ouattara. Assalamu`Alaikum. My Name is Dr. mohammad ouattara, I am a banker by profession. I'm from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, West Africa. My reason for contacting you is to transfer an abandoned $10.6M to your account. The owner of this fund died since 2004 with

Re: [PATCH RFC] btrfs: self heal from SB fail

On 2017年12月08日 15:57, Anand Jain wrote: > -EXPERIMENTAL- > As of now when primary SB fails we won't self heal and would fail mount, > this is an experimental patch which thinks why not go and read backup > copy. Just curious about in which real world case that backup super block can help. At

Re: [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: Greatly simplify btrfs_read_dev_super

On 12/07/2017 11:07 PM, Anand Jain wrote: On 12/07/2017 12:24 AM, David Sterba wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 06:20:09PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: I don't understand what problem *should* be solved here... Without any further checks and validation, we cannot simply iterate over all