Re: [patch 3/4] mm: filemap: pass __GFP_WRITE from grab_cache_page_write_begin()

2011-09-27 Thread Minchan Kim
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:45:14PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Tell the page allocator that pages allocated through > grab_cache_page_write_begin() are expected to become dirty soon. > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim -- Kinds regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe

Re: [patch 1/2/4] mm: writeback: cleanups in preparation for per-zone dirty limits

2011-09-27 Thread Minchan Kim
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:41:07PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:52:42AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:02:26PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Should we rename determine_dirtyable_memory() to > > > global_dirtyable_memory(), to get some

Re: [patch 2/2/4] mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones

2011-09-27 Thread Minchan Kim
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:42:48PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time > is determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a > user-configured percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes. It's explanation of old a

Re: [patch 1/4 v2] mm: exclude reserved pages from dirtyable memory

2011-09-27 Thread Minchan Kim
Hi Hannes, On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:38:17PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The amount of dirtyable pages should not include the full number of > free pages: there is a number of reserved pages that the page > allocator and kswapd always try to keep free. > > The closer (reclaimable pages - dir

Re: File compression control, again.

2011-09-27 Thread Li Zefan
01:17, Artem worte: > Hi! > > So, it makes sense to keep the compression on by default > and with LZO many people are going there. > > But, I want to create a database on a compressed btrfs filesystem > which is seek-heavy rather than throughput-heavy > and I really want to turn the compression o

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: only inherit btrfs specific flags when creating files

2011-09-27 Thread Liu Bo
On 09/27/2011 11:02 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Xfstests 79 was failing because we were inheriting the S_APPEND flag when we > weren't supposed to. There isn't any specific documentation on this so I'm > taking the test as the standard of how things work, and having S_APPEND set > on a > directory d

Re: Honest timeline for btrfsck

2011-09-27 Thread Clemens Eisserer
+1 2011/9/27 Jeff Putney : > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote: >> I had hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still >>might >> post it tonight. >> >> -chris > > I don't think this is the honest time line that people were looking > for.  Instead of playing

Re: [PATCH 07/21] Btrfs: add basic infrastructure for selective balancing

2011-09-27 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:02:41PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:01:48PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > > This allows to have a separate set of filters for each chunk type > > (data,meta,sys). The code however is generic and switch on chunk type > > is only done once. > >

File compression control, again.

2011-09-27 Thread Artem
Hi! So, it makes sense to keep the compression on by default and with LZO many people are going there. But, I want to create a database on a compressed btrfs filesystem which is seek-heavy rather than throughput-heavy and I really want to turn the compression off just for that database (smaller I

Re: [GIT PULL] ENOSPC rework and random fixes for next merge window

2011-09-27 Thread Josef Bacik
On 09/27/2011 11:01 AM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:36:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Btrfs: fix how we mount subvol= > > this patch was not sent to the mailiglist, although this is an > intersting change from the user's POV: > > subvolumes are now mountable via > >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: break out of orphan cleanup if we can't make progress

2011-09-27 Thread Josef Bacik
On 09/27/2011 10:44 AM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:56:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn't have enough space to >> delete our inode the orphan cleanup would just loop. This is because it >> keeps >> finding the same orphan i

[PATCH] Btrfs: only inherit btrfs specific flags when creating files

2011-09-27 Thread Josef Bacik
Xfstests 79 was failing because we were inheriting the S_APPEND flag when we weren't supposed to. There isn't any specific documentation on this so I'm taking the test as the standard of how things work, and having S_APPEND set on a directory doesn't mean that S_APPEND gets inherited by its childr

Re: [GIT PULL] ENOSPC rework and random fixes for next merge window

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 05:36:32PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Btrfs: fix how we mount subvol= this patch was not sent to the mailiglist, although this is an intersting change from the user's POV: subvolumes are now mountable via -o subvol=any/path/always/relative/to/toplevel which makes

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: break out of orphan cleanup if we can't make progress

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 03:56:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn't have enough space to > delete our inode the orphan cleanup would just loop. This is because it keeps > finding the same orphan item and keeps trying to kill it but can't because we

Re: Honest timeline for btrfsck

2011-09-27 Thread Jeff Putney
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > I had hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still might > post it tonight. > > -chris I don't think this is the honest time line that people were looking for. Instead of playing more guessing games, how about we just ge

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: introduce convert_extent_bit

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:56:18PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > If I have a range where I know a certain bit is and I want to set it to > another > bit the only option I have is to call set and then clear bit, which will > result > in 2 tree searches. This is inefficient, so introduce convert_ext

Re: [PATCH 14/21] Btrfs: save restripe parameters to disk

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:01:55PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > Introduce a new btree objectid for storing restripe item. The reason is > to be able to resume restriper after a crash with the same parameters. > Restripe item has a very high objectid and goes into tree of tree roots. > > The key f

Re: [PATCH 10/21] Btrfs: usage filter

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:01:51PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > Select chunks that are less than X percent full. > > Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov > --- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 33 + > fs/btrfs/volumes.h |1 + > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH 07/21] Btrfs: add basic infrastructure for selective balancing

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:01:48PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > This allows to have a separate set of filters for each chunk type > (data,meta,sys). The code however is generic and switch on chunk type > is only done once. > > This commit also adds a type filter: it allows to balance for example

Re: [PATCH 01/21] Btrfs: get rid of *_alloc_profile fields

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:01:42PM +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > {data,metadata,system}_alloc_profile fields have been unused for a long > time now. Get rid of them. a good cleanup which could be sent separately. d/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the b

Re: [PATCH 00/21] [RFC] Btrfs: restriper

2011-09-27 Thread David Sterba
Hi, I've hit a problem with restriper but under ragher unclear conditions: [12308.210636] [ cut here ] [12308.214185] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2047! [12308.214185] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP [12308.214185] CPU 0 [12308.214185] Modules linked in: loop btrfs ao

Re: high CPU usage and low perf

2011-09-27 Thread Stephane Chazelas
2011-09-27 10:15:09 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: [...] > a btrfs file system of mine started to behave very poorly with > some btrfs kernel tasks taking 100% of CPU time. > > # btrfs fi show /dev/sdb > Label: none uuid: b3ce8b16-970e-4ba8-b9d2-4c7de270d0f1 > Total devices 3 FS bytes used 4.2

high CPU usage and low perf

2011-09-27 Thread Stephane Chazelas
Hiya, Recently, a btrfs file system of mine started to behave very poorly with some btrfs kernel tasks taking 100% of CPU time. # btrfs fi show /dev/sdb Label: none uuid: b3ce8b16-970e-4ba8-b9d2-4c7de270d0f1 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 4.25TB devid2 size 2.73TB used 1.52T

Re: btrfs won't mount

2011-09-27 Thread Liu Bo
On 09/27/2011 10:52 AM, Jim wrote: > Hi Btrfs list, > I am testing btrfs on a (to me) large filesystem. The tree consists of > /data/sites/...0419/email.addr/files. > Within each of the 420 directories are 2562 directories each with 20 > files on average. The files range from > small html fil