Re: [PATCH 3/8] Fix btrfs/094 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this > > a lot this last couple days. > > > > kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2654! > > invalid

Re: [PATCH 3/3] reflink: more tests

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:34:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either > the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone > behavior is broken, which wouldn't be very reasuring. I didn't have > time to look into

Re: attacking btrfs filesystems via UUID collisions?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, S.J. wrote: >> 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation >> writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a >> consequence and should not be used to make copies. > > >> 2. Btrfs needs a better way to make

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this > a lot this last couple days. > > kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2654! > invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC KASAN > CPU: 1 PID: 2566 Comm:

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Filter xfs_io's output in units of page size

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > The helpers introduced in this commit will be used to make btrfs tests that > assume 4k as the page size to work on non-4k page-sized systems as well. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] Fix btrfs/056 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified and _filter_od > filtering functions to print information in terms of file blocks rather than > file offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: subvols, ro- and bind mounts - how?

Hey. I'd have an additional question about subvols O:-) Given the following setup: 5 | +--root (subvol, /)    +-- mnt (dir) with the following done: - init 1 - remount,ro / (i.e. the subvol root) - mount /dev/btrfs-device /mnt (i.e. mount the top subvol at /mnt) The following happened: - / was

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > Not sure if I've already reported

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this > > > a lot this last couple

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

* Chris Mason [2015-12-10 20:02]: > Huh, are you able to reproduce at will? From this code path it should > mean somebody else is unlocking a page they don't own. I've got another code path causing this bug that happened during a "btrfs dev delete missing". Didn't try to reproduce

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: >> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at

Re: subvols, ro- and bind mounts - how?

Hey. I'd have an additional question about subvols O:-) Given the following setup: 5 | +--root (subvol, /) +-- mnt (dir) with the following done: - init 1 - remount,ro / (i.e. the subvol root) - mount /dev/btrfs-device /mnt (i.e. mount the top subvol at /mnt) The following happened: - /

Re: subvols, ro- and bind mounts - how?

On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 23:36 +0100, S.J. wrote: > Quote: > > " Most mount options apply to the whole filesystem, and only the > options > for the first subvolume > to be mounted will take effect. This is due to lack of implementation > and may change in the future. " > > from

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > Not sure if I've already

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:25:28PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > Not sure if I've already

Re: [PATCH 3/3] reflink: more tests

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:14:29AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 08:34:49AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either > > the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone > > behavior is

[GIT PULL] Btrfs fixes for 4.4

From: Filipe Manana Hi Chris, Please consider the following fixes for kernel 4.4. Two of them are fixes to new issues introduced in the 4.4 merge window and 4.4 release candidates. The other one just fixes a warning message that is confusing and has made several users wonder

Re: attacking btrfs filesystems via UUID collisions?

On 2015-12-09 16:48, S.J. wrote: >> 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation >> writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a >> consequence and should not be used to make copies. > >> 2. Btrfs needs a better way to make a copy of a volume when there

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix transaction handle leak in balance

From: Filipe Manana If we fail to allocate a new data chunk, we were jumping to the error path without release the transaction handle we got before. Fix this by always releasing it before doing the jump. Fixes: 2c9fe8355258 ("btrfs: Fix lost-data-profile caused by balance

Re: subvols and parents - how?

On 2015-12-09 22:56, Duncan wrote: > Austin S Hemmelgarn posted on Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:04:06 -0500 as > excerpted: > >> Agreed. It's not too bad fixing a Gentoo system (as long as >> /var/lib/portage/world is still correct, you can just nuke the installed >> package database and emerge world,

Re: [PATCH 2/8] Fix btrfs/052 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH 6/8] Fix btrfs/098 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] Fix btrfs/055 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified and _filter_od > filtering functions to print information in terms of file blocks rather than > file offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH V2 5/5] Fix btrfs/096 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH V2 2/5] Fix btrfs/017 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH V2 1/5] Filter xfs_io and od's output in units of FS block size

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > The helpers introduced in this commit will be used to make btrfs tests that > assume 4k as the block size to work on non-4k blocksized filesystem instances > as well. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: subvols, ro- and bind mounts - how?

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:36 PM, S.J. wrote: > Quote: > > " Most mount options apply to the whole filesystem, and only the options for > the first subvolume > to be mounted will take effect. This is due to lack of implementation and > may change in the future. " > > from

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:57:20PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 04:30:24PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:35:55PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 02:02:20PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at

Re: attacking btrfs filesystems via UUID collisions?

Am 10.12.2015 13:41, schrieb Hugo Mills: On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:08:51AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-12-09 16:48, S.J. wrote: 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a consequence and

Re: attacking btrfs filesystems via UUID collisions?

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 07:08:51AM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-12-09 16:48, S.J. wrote: > >> 1. better practices, we really need to tell users, and documentation > >> writers, that using dd (or variant) to copy Btrfs volumes has a > >> consequence and should not be used to make

Re: [PATCH 4/8] Fix btrfs/095 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH 5/8] Fix btrfs/097 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: [PATCH 7/8] Fix btrfs/103 to work on non-4k block sized filesystems

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Chandan Rajendra wrote: > This commit makes use of the new _filter_xfs_io_blocks_modified filtering > function to print information in terms of file blocks rather than file > offset. > > Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra

Re: !PageLocked BUG_ON hit in clear_page_dirty_for_io

On 2015.12.08 at 23:25 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > Not sure if I've already reported this one, but I've been seeing this > a lot this last couple days. > > kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2654! Just hit the same issue trying to build ghc-7.10.3: [55704.436096] [ cut here

Re: [PATCH 3/3] reflink: more tests

The new 849 fails reliably on btrfs, which makes me wonder if either the test is doing something wrong, or the btrfs whole file clone behavior is broken, which wouldn't be very reasuring. I didn't have time to look into why it's failing yet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line