On 20.12.2017 06:57, Su Yue wrote:
> In lowmem mode with '--repair', check_chunks_and_extents_v2()
> will fix accounting in block groups and clear the error
> bit BG_ACCOUNTING_ERROR.
> However, return value of check_btrfs_root() is 0 either 1 instead of
> error bits.
>
> If extent tree is on
Hi all,
I get warnings as seen in attached dmesg.log. This is on 4.14.9.
4.9.72 runs flawless so far.
##
Linux toy 4.14.9-toy-lxtec-amd64 #7 SMP Fri Dec 29 10:43:28 CET 2017 x86_64
GNU/Linux
--
btrfs-progs v4.13.3
--
Label: 'TOY-RAID1' uuid: 32fc4ea0-0b26-478c-9b2e-b299d6289270
On 29.12.2017 19:07, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
> Apply the patch from https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9960893/
> and follow the logged instructions re. device resizing (or see
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196949 for examples).
>
> The patch is unfortunately not yet merged
* Elimar Riesebieter [2017-12-29 17:33 +0100]:
> Hi all,
>
> I get warnings as seen in attached dmesg.log. This is on 4.14.9.
> 4.9.72 runs flawless so far.
>
> ##
> Linux toy 4.14.9-toy-lxtec-amd64 #7 SMP Fri Dec 29 10:43:28 CET 2017 x86_64
> GNU/Linux
> --
>
Apply the patch from https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9960893/
and follow the logged instructions re. device resizing (or see
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196949 for examples).
The patch is unfortunately not yet merged into 4.15rc, otherwise it
could be sent to 4.14-stable.
-h
Thanks,
* Nikolay Borisov [2017-12-29 19:23 +0200]:
[...]
> So OP:
>
> Update your btrfs-progs package to latest 4.14 and run btrfs rescue :
>
> btrfs rescue fix-device-size
I installed btrfs-progs 4.14. Can't run
'btrfs rescue fix-device-size /dev/sd(a|b)3'. The
You were right! grep found two more signature blocks! How do I make use of them?
videon:~ # LC_ALL=C grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x53\x5F\x4D" /dev/sde
65600:_BHRfS_M
26697111807:_BHRfS_M
26854350428:_BHRfS_M
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
>
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 05:09:14 +0300
Timofey Titovets wrote:
> Currently btrfs raid1/10 balancer balance requests to mirrors,
> based on pid % num of mirrors.
>
> Make logic understood:
> - if one of underline devices are non rotational
> - Queue leght to underline devices
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 21:44:19 +0300
Dmitrii Tcvetkov wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * guess_optimal - return guessed optimal mirror
> > + *
> > + * Optimal expected to be pid % num_stripes
> > + *
> > + * That's generaly ok for spread load
> > + * Add some balancer based on queue
2017-12-29 22:14 GMT+03:00 Dmitrii Tcvetkov :
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 21:44:19 +0300
> Dmitrii Tcvetkov wrote:
>> > +/**
>> > + * guess_optimal - return guessed optimal mirror
>> > + *
>> > + * Optimal expected to be pid % num_stripes
>> > + *
>> > + *
On 2017年12月30日 03:30, Stirling Westrup wrote:
> You were right! grep found two more signature blocks! How do I make use of
> them?
>
> videon:~ # LC_ALL=C grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x53\x5F\x4D" /dev/sde
> 65600:_BHRfS_M
This the correct one.
Offset is 64K + 64.
> 26697111807:_BHRfS_M
Am Thu, 28 Dec 2017 00:39:37 + schrieb Duncan:
>> I can I get btrfs balance to work in the background, without adversely
>> affecting other applications?
>
> I'd actually suggest a different strategy.
>
> What I did here way back when I was still on reiserfs on spinning rust,
> where it
From: Loretta Robles
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:01 PM
To: Loretta Robles
Subject: ATTENTION!!!
You have been randomly selected for a donation. Contact soriz4...@gmail.com for
claims.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On 12/28/2017 12:15 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> On 23.12.2017 13:19, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
>>
>> During a btrfs balance, the process hogs all CPU.
>> Or, to be exact, any other program that wishes to use the SSD during a
>> btrfs balance is blocked for long periods. Long periods being
On 29.12.2017 20:17, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> * Nikolay Borisov [2017-12-29 19:23 +0200]:
>
> [...]
>
>> So OP:
>>
>> Update your btrfs-progs package to latest 4.14 and run btrfs rescue :
>>
>> btrfs rescue fix-device-size
>
> I installed btrfs-progs 4.14.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:03:24 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/28/17 12:20 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:32:07 -0800
> > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/27/17 8:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42
While performing normal mode check if the code comes across an invalid
extent format it will just BUG() and exit without printing any useful
information for debugging. Improve the situation by outputting the
key/leaf bytenr/slot which will enable to quickly inspect the tree and
see what the
This seems to miss the linux-block list once again. Please include
it in the next resend.
--
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
Why do you need the srcu protection? The completion path can never
sleep.
If there is a good reason to keep it please add commment, and
make the srcu variant a separate function only used by drivers that
need it instead of adding the conditional.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:07:23AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Note that this makes blk_abort_request() asynchronous - it initiates
> abortion but the actual termination will happen after a short while,
> even when the caller owns the request. AFAICS, SCSI and ATA should be
> fine with that and I
20 matches
Mail list logo