Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Don't error on resizing FS to same size

2011-11-18 Thread Mike Fleetwood
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 03:52:00PM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote: On 18/11/11 08:04, Mike Fleetwood wrote: It seems overly harsh to fail a resize of a btrfs file system to the same size when a shrink or grow would succeed. User app GParted trips over this error. Allow it by bypassing the

[PATCH] 254: disable space cache

2011-11-18 Thread Li Zefan
I can't pass 254, and below is the output: 254 3s ... - output mismatch (see 254.out.bad) ... ID 256 top level 5 path snap -ID 257 top level 5 path subvol +ID 258 top level 5 path subvol When space cache is enabled (and now mkfs.btrfs always enables it), there will be some space cache inodes in

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix deadlock on metadata reservation when evicting a inode

2011-11-18 Thread Miao Xie
When I ran the xfstests, I found the test tasks was blocked on meta-data reservation. By debugging, I found the reason of this bug: start transaction | v reserve meta-data space | v flush delay allocation - iput inode - evict inode ^

Re: [Cluster-devel] fallocate vs O_(D)SYNC

2011-11-18 Thread Steven Whitehouse
Hi, Here is what I'm planning for GFS2: Add sync of metadata after fallocate for O_SYNC files to ensure that we meet expectations for everything being on disk in this case. Unfortunately, the offset and len parameters are modified during the course of the fallocate function, so I've had to add

Re: Segmentation Faults

2011-11-18 Thread Timothy Crone
Okay, I installed 3.1.1 and continue to oops when trying to delete a directory. Please let me know if you would like any additional information. I'm going to rebuild from a backup later today. Cheers,Tim On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:00 PM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote: Hi, On Wed, Nov 16,

Re: Announcing btrfs-gui

2011-11-18 Thread Phillip Susi
On 6/1/2011 7:20 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: Over the last few weeks, I've been playing with a foolish idea, mostly triggered by a cluster of people being confused by btrfs's free space reporting (df vs btrfs fi df vs btrfs fi show). I also wanted an excuse, and some code, to mess around in the

[PATCH] Btrfs: wait on caching if we're loading the free space cache V2

2011-11-18 Thread Josef Bacik
We've been hitting panics when running xfstest 13 in a loop for long periods of time. And actually this problem has always existed so we've been hitting these things randomly for a while. Basically what happens is we get a thread coming into the allocator and reading the space cache off of disk

[PATCH v2] Btrfs: Don't error on resizing FS to same size

2011-11-18 Thread Mike Fleetwood
It seems overly harsh to fail a resize of a btrfs file system to the same size when a shrink or grow would succeed. User app GParted trips over this error. Allow it by bypassing the shrink or grow operation. Signed-off-by: Mike Fleetwood mike.fleetw...@googlemail.com --- v2: Fix FS shrink

Re: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2198 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xa8/0xc0

2011-11-18 Thread Stefan Kleijkers
Hello Josef, I've two new dmesg's (ceph osd 0 and 1). Both filesystems wheren't responding anymore. Please let me know if you need more information or another run. Both are made with the 3.1.1 kernel and your patches applied (the patches with the extra warning messages). Paste: OSD.0:

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix num_start_workers count if we fail to make an alloc

2011-11-18 Thread Josef Bacik
Al pointed out that if we fail to start a worker for whatever reason (ENOMEM basically), we could leak our count for num_start_workers, and so we'd think we had more workers than we actually do. This could cause us to shrink workers when we shouldn't or not start workers when we should. So check

Re: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2198 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xa8/0xc0

2011-11-18 Thread Josef Bacik
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 09:19:12PM +0100, Stefan Kleijkers wrote: Hello Josef, You can find the complete dmesg paste on: http://pastebin.com/R4dFfSdQ But I doubt it will add more information. Sorry I forgot about you :). Here is a new debug patch, it will print something out right

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix num_start_workers count if we fail to make an alloc

2011-11-18 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 02:38:54PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: Al pointed out that if we fail to start a worker for whatever reason (ENOMEM basically), we could leak our count for num_start_workers, and so we'd think we had more workers than we actually do. This could cause us to shrink

WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2408 btrfs_orphan_cleanup

2011-11-18 Thread Gregory Farnum
I'm running Ceph OSDs on btrfs and have managed to corrupt several of them so that on mount I get an error: root@cephstore6356:~# mount /dev/sde1 /mnt/osd.2/ 2011 Nov 18 10:44:52 cephstore6356 [68494.771472] btrfs: could not do orphan cleanup -116 mount: Stale NFS file handle Attempting to mount

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix num_start_workers count if we fail to make an alloc

2011-11-18 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 08:20:56PM +, Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 02:38:54PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: Al pointed out that if we fail to start a worker for whatever reason (ENOMEM basically), we could leak our count for num_start_workers, and so we'd think we had more

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix num_start_workers count if we fail to make an alloc

2011-11-18 Thread Al Viro
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 01:37:39AM +, Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 08:20:56PM +, Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 02:38:54PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: Al pointed out that if we fail to start a worker for whatever reason (ENOMEM basically), we could leak our