Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!

2011-06-07 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
Hi liubo, (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote: On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi, I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus' kernel. I ran btrfs fi bal /test5 command, and mount option of /test5 is as follows: /dev/sdc3 on /test5 type btrfs

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!

2011-06-07 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
(2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi liubo, (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote: On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi, I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus' kernel. I ran btrfs fi bal /test5 command, and mount option of /test5 is as follows:

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!

2011-06-07 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
(2011/06/07 15:17), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi liubo, (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote: On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi, I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus' kernel. I ran btrfs fi bal /test5 command, and

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!

2011-06-07 Thread liubo
On 06/07/2011 04:24 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 15:17), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi liubo, (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote: On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi, I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus' kernel.

btrfs: remove 64bit alignment padding to allow extent_buffer to fit into one fewer cacheline

2011-06-07 Thread Richard Kennedy
Reorder extent_buffer to remove 8 bytes of alignment padding on 64 bit builds. This shrinks its size to 128 bytes allowing it to fit into one fewer cache lines and allows more objects per slab in its kmem_cache. slabinfo extent_buffer reports :- before:- Sizes (bytes) Slabs

Re: Delayed inode operations not doing the right thing with enospc

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
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 [ 9792.654889] [ cut here ] [ 9792.654898] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5681 btrfs_alloc_free_block+0xca/0x27c

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!

2011-06-07 Thread Chris Mason
Excerpts from liubo's message of 2011-06-07 04:36:56 -0400: On 06/07/2011 04:24 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 15:17), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi liubo, (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote: On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi, I

Re: New btrfsck status

2011-06-07 Thread Jeff Putney
Me too. I've got a 9TB filesystem that I can't mount since rebooting during a rebalance. I want to get the fs as repaired as possible, but I am not in a hurry, and I have enough space at present to make a duplicate and play with test versions of the repair. --jeff On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:41

[PATCH] Btrfs: account for space reservations properly V2

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
We have been using space_info-bytes_reserved in the metadata case to cover our reservations for ENOSPC. The problem with this is thats horribly wrong. We use bytes_reserved to keep track of how many bytes the allocator has outstanding that haven't actually been made into extents yet. So what

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix btrfs_update_reserved_bytes usage

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
For some reason btrfs_update_reserved_bytes was only ever updating the bytes_reserved counter of the space info if the space info was data. I assume this is because the original enospc stuff used bytes_reserved to account for space reserved for enospc accounting, but now that we're using

[PATCH 0/2] Fix ENOSPC regression

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
Sergei accidently introduced a regression with c4f675cd40d955d539180506c09515c90169b15b The problem isn't his patch, it's that we are entirely too touchy to changes in this area because the way we deal with pressure is racy in general. The other problem is even though delalloc bytes are 0, we

[PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: serialize flushers in reserve_metadata_bytes

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
We keep having problems with early enospc, and that's because our method of making space is inherently racy. The problem is we can have one guy trying to make space for himself, and in the meantime people come in and steal his reservation. In order to stop this we make a waitqueue and put

[PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: do transaction space reservation before joining the transaction

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
We have to do weird things when handling enospc in the transaction joining code. Because we've already joined the transaction we cannot commit the transaction within the reservation code since it will deadlock, so we have to return EAGAIN and then make sure we don't retry too many times. Instead

Re: Delayed inode operations not doing the right thing with enospc

2011-06-07 Thread Josef Bacik
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 [ 9792.654889] [ cut here ] [ 9792.654898] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5681

[PATCH] Btrfs: use join_transaction in btrfs_evict_inode()

2011-06-07 Thread Li Zefan
The WARN_ON() in start_transaction() was triggered while balancing. The cause is btrfs_relocate_chunk() started a transaction and then called iput() on the inode that stores free space cache, and iput() called btrfs_start_transaction() again. Reported-by: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com

[PATCH] Btrfs: avoid stack bloat in btrfs_ioctl_fs_info()

2011-06-07 Thread Li Zefan
The size of struct btrfs_ioctl_fs_info_args is as big as 1KB, so don't declare the variable on stack. Signed-off-by: Li Zefan l...@cn.fujitsu.com --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 23 ++- 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!

2011-06-07 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
(2011/06/08 0:46), Chris Mason wrote: Excerpts from liubo's message of 2011-06-07 04:36:56 -0400: On 06/07/2011 04:24 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 15:17), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: (2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Hi liubo, (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote: On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM,