Re: btrfs_remove_chunk call trace?

2017-09-12 Thread Rich Rauenzahn
On 9/11/2017 1:35 PM, Duncan wrote: Rich Rauenzahn posted on Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:45:50 -0700 as excerpted: ...and can it be related to the Samsung 840 SSD's not supporting NCQ Trim? (Although I can't tell which device this trace is from -- it could be a mechanical Western Digital.) On Sun,

Re: btrfs_remove_chunk call trace?

2017-09-11 Thread Duncan
Rich Rauenzahn posted on Sun, 10 Sep 2017 22:45:50 -0700 as excerpted: > ...and can it be related to the Samsung 840 SSD's not supporting NCQ > Trim? (Although I can't tell which device this trace is from -- it > could be a mechanical Western Digital.) > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Rich

Re: btrfs_remove_chunk call trace?

2017-09-10 Thread Rich Rauenzahn
...and can it be related to the Samsung 840 SSD's not supporting NCQ Trim? (Although I can't tell which device this trace is from -- it could be a mechanical Western Digital.) On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 10:16 PM, Rich Rauenzahn wrote: > Is this something to be concerned about?

btrfs_remove_chunk call trace?

2017-09-10 Thread Rich Rauenzahn
Is this something to be concerned about? I'm running the latest mainline kernel on CentOS 7. [ 1338.882288] [ cut here ] [ 1338.883058] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 790 at fs/btrfs/ctree.h:1559 btrfs_update_device+0x1c5/0x1d0 [btrfs] [ 1338.883809] Modules linked in: xt_nat veth