[PATCH] Btrfs: fix memory leak in load_free_space_cache()

2012-02-14 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
load_free_space_cache() has forgotten to free path. Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com --- fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c |1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c index 5802b147..b30242f 100644

[PATCH 3/3 v3] xfstests: add btrfs online defragments QA test

2012-02-14 Thread Liu Bo
As the title shows, we port btrfs online defragments QA test into xfstests. v3: - use xfstests wrappers. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com --- 278 | 171 +++ 278.out | 11 group |1 + 3 files changed, 183

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Btrfs: restriper

2012-02-14 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:31:09PM -0500, Jérôme Poulin wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com wrote: This is a respin of restriper patch series which adds an initial implementation of restriper (it's a clever name for relocation framework that allows to do

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Btrfs: restriper

2012-02-14 Thread Jérôme Poulin
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com wrote: Just to be sure, could you please paste the output of `btrfs-debug-tree -d your device' somewhere ? Here it is: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/550900/ I also had btrsck errors before and still have them with 3 new after

Re: [PATCH 00/21] Btrfs: restriper

2012-02-14 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:15:39AM -0500, Jérôme Poulin wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Ilya Dryomov idryo...@gmail.com wrote: Just to be sure, could you please paste the output of `btrfs-debug-tree -d your device' somewhere ? Here it is: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/550900/ So I

Re: Bulk discard doesn't work after add/delete of devices

2012-02-14 Thread Lutz Euler
Hi, Liu Bo wrote: Actually I have no idea how to deal with this properly :( Because btrfs supports multi-devices so that we have to set the filesystem logical range to [0, (u64)-1] to get things to work well, while other filesystems's logical range is [0, device's total_bytes]. What's

Re: can't read superblock (but could mount)

2012-02-14 Thread Timo Nentwig
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote: btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/xxx # btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/loop1 leaf 9872289792 items 51 free space 0 generation 120351 owner 5 fs uuid 9e9886fc-3e60-4c59-a246-727662769ee2 chunk uuid f7e4ac1e-f4d6-436b-9bda-8409311dcdb6 item

Re: can't read superblock (but could mount)

2012-02-14 Thread Chris Mason
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 06:37:16PM +0100, Timo Nentwig wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote: btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/xxx # btrfs-debug-tree -b 9872289792 /dev/loop1 leaf 9872289792 items 51 free space 0 generation 120351 owner 5 Ok, so this block is full of directory

Re: can't read superblock (but could mount)

2012-02-14 Thread Timo Nentwig
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote: As for how we got here, I think you said you were originally running something older than 3.2 when these problems started, correct? Nope, I was already on 3.2.1 or 3.2.4. I restored a backup in the meantime and already had to soft-reset the box: # ls

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add the snappy-c compressor to lib v2

2012-02-14 Thread Andi Kleen
(BTW: If you're ever reworking this patch set, I'd like to make an ad hoc request for slightly different names for fs/btrfs/snappy.c and lib/snappy.c) Why? When building a x86 kernel, I get the following errors: CC [M] lib/snappy.o lib/snappy.c: In function 'snappy_init_env':

Re: [RFB] add LZ4 compression method to btrfs

2012-02-14 Thread Markus Lindberg
Silesia corpus (avg of 10 runs), AMD bulldozer box, 12G ram, 1Ghz cpu: lz4 = 739860 us ( 286 MB/s) 195930 us (1081 MB/s) 211957760 - 101630873 47.9% snappy 1.0.4 = 1050 ms ( 201 MB/s) 248 ms ( 853 MB/s) 211957760 - 104739310 49.4% snappy-c = 940111

Re: [RFB] add LZ4 compression method to btrfs

2012-02-14 Thread Andi Kleen
Markus Lindberg marcuslindb...@gmail.com writes: Are you sure about these figures ? the difference seems too large. It's almost unbelievable. Yes, my benchmarks totally disagree with them. In my tests lz4 is generally slower than snappy-c. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for

Re: can't read superblock (but could mount)

2012-02-14 Thread Chris Mason
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:54:43PM +0100, Timo Nentwig wrote: On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote: As for how we got here, I think you said you were originally running something older than 3.2 when these problems started, correct? Nope, I was already on 3.2.1 or 3.2.4. I restored a

Re: [RFB] add LZ4 compression method to btrfs

2012-02-14 Thread Hugo Chevrain
Are you sure about these figures ? the difference seems too large. It's almost unbelievable. -- You should not, Mark Ruijter found the same for LessFS (http://www.lessfs.com/wordpress/? p=688) and there is also such finding into an Hadoop thread

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Add the snappy-c compressor to lib v2

2012-02-14 Thread Mitch Harder
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com wrote: (BTW:  If you're ever reworking this patch set, I'd like to make an ad hoc request for slightly different names for fs/btrfs/snappy.c and lib/snappy.c) Why? It's not a big deal, I just found it confusing at first to

[PATCH V2] Btrfs-progs: add \btrfs subvolume get-default\ subcommand

2012-02-14 Thread Anand Jain
Hi Xin / Hugo, I am referring to git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git has miss match parameter list for list_subvols -- # cd btrfs-progs # egrep list_subvols * btrfs_cmds.c: ret = list_subvols(fd, print_parent, 0); btrfs_cmds.c: ret =

Re: can't read superblock (but could mount)

2012-02-14 Thread Timo Nentwig
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote: Ok, 3.2 shouldn't have done this. Was this an external drive? What else do you have on the system? Nothing special actually. Standard arch linux with virtualbox kernel modules. It's a SSD if this should matter. Mounted with ssd,compress=lzo,noatime.