On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 07:37:46PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>Here are a bunch of patches which cleanup extraneous fs_info parameters to
>function which already take a structure that holds a reference to the fs_info.
>
>Except for patches 4 and 5, everything else is correct - due to those
On 2018年07月21日 05:28, Alexander Wetzel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running my normal workstation with git kernels from
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wireless/wireless-testing.git
> and just got the second file system corruption in three weeks. I do not
> have issues with stable
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:28:42PM +0200, Alexander Wetzel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running my normal workstation with git kernels from
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wireless/wireless-testing.git
> and just got the second file system corruption in three weeks. I do
> not have
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Alexander Wetzel wrote:
> [ 979.223808] BTRFS: error (device sdc2) in __btrfs_cow_block:1080: errno=-5
> IO failure
Are there no other messages in syslog? "IO failure" (from
fs/btrfs/super.c:75) sounds like a problem with the underlying device.
Maybe try w/o the "discard"
Hello,
I'm running my normal workstation with git kernels from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wireless/wireless-testing.git
and just got the second file system corruption in three weeks. I do not
have issues with stable kernels, and just want to give you a heads up
that there
On 2018-07-20 14:41, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:38:14PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
20.07.2018 20:16, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
[snip]
Limiting the number of disk per raid, in BTRFS would be quite simple to implement in the
"chunk allocator"
You mean that currently
From: Josef Bacik
We recently ran into the following deadlock involving
btrfs_write_inode():
[ +0.005066] __schedule+0x38e/0x8c0
[ +0.007144] schedule+0x36/0x80
[ +0.006447] bit_wait+0x11/0x60
[ +0.006446] __wait_on_bit+0xbe/0x110
[ +0.007487] ? bit_wait_io+0x60/0x60
[ +0.007319]
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:38:14PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 20.07.2018 20:16, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
[snip]
> > Limiting the number of disk per raid, in BTRFS would be quite simple to
> > implement in the "chunk allocator"
> >
>
> You mean that currently RAID5 stripe size is equal
20.07.2018 20:16, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
> On 07/20/2018 07:17 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 18.07.2018 22:42, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>>> On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
excerpted:
> On 07/17/2018
On 2018-07-20 13:13, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 07/19/2018 09:10 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2018-07-19 13:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
So until now you are repeating what I told: the only useful raid profile are
- striping
- mirroring
- striping+paring (even limiting the
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:48:01PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:49:28AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:17:42PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 06:57:59PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at
On 07/20/2018 07:17 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 18.07.2018 22:42, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>> On 07/18/2018 09:20 AM, Duncan wrote:
>>> Goffredo Baroncelli posted on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 07:59:52 +0200 as
>>> excerpted:
>>>
On 07/17/2018 11:12 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Goffredo Baroncelli
On 07/19/2018 09:10 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-07-19 13:29, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
>>
>> So until now you are repeating what I told: the only useful raid profile are
>> - striping
>> - mirroring
>> - striping+paring (even limiting the number of disk involved)
>> -
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 07:47:23AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> > So this special level will be used for RAID56 for now?
> > Or it will also be possible for metadata usage just like current RAID1?
> >
> > If the latter, the metadata scrub problem will need to be considered more.
> >
> >
It can be referenced from the passed transaction handle.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 241875277a7e..7376c83708e4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++
It can be referenced form the passed transaction handle.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index e8fb9d5d976e..e73b9e9d6c10 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
It can be referenced from the passed 'device' argument which is always
a well-formed device.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 9 +
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 4 ++--
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git
It can be referenced from the passed srcdev argument.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 5 ++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 3 +--
3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
It can be referenced from the passed transaction handle.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 5 ++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 10 +-
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 6 ++
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
It can be referenced from the passed transaction handle.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 844e5d4fd3e4..35cc5b6a06e0 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++
Here are a bunch of patches which cleanup extraneous fs_info parameters to
function which already take a structure that holds a reference to the fs_info.
Except for patches 4 and 5, everything else is correct - due to those functions
always taking a transaction. 4 and 5 in turn reference the
This function is always passed a well-formed tgtdevice so the fs_info
can be referenced from there.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 6 +++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 5 ++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 3 +--
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:27:17PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2018年07月14日 02:46, David Sterba wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some goodies that go into the RAID56 problem, although not
> > implementing all the remaining features, it can be useful independently.
> >
> > This time my hackweek
fstests run in the sequence from btrfs/001, in qemu, 2G memory, warning
and crash at btrfs/124
btrfs/124 [22:58:39]
[10100.765898] run fstests btrfs/124 at 2018-07-19 22:58:39
...
[10110.113787] BTRFS: device fsid 8b6b700e-3346-4260-bb2e-c561ba4b9960 devid 1
transid 7 /dev/vdb
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:05:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> The root is only used to get fs_info out of it, but the same can be
> retrieved from the inode that's in async_cow.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Sterba
> ---
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 7 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:49:45AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -2577,12 +2577,9 @@ static int cleanup_ref_head(struct btrfs_trans_handle
> *trans,
> spin_unlock(_refs->lock);
> return 1;
> }
> -
The exported helper just calls the static one. There's no obvious reason
to have them separate eg. for performance reasons where the static one
could be better optimized in the same unit. There's a slight decrease in
code size and stack consumption.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
A few more structure member leftovers spotted, and some trivial cleanups.
David Sterba (4):
btrfs: remove unused member btrfs_root::name
btrfs: dev-replace: remove unused members of btrfs_dev_replace
btrfs: constify strings passed to assertion helper
btrfs: merge free_fs_root helpers
Added in 58176a9604c ("Btrfs: Add per-root block accounting and sysfs
entries") in 2007, the roots had names exported in sysfs. The code
was commented out in 4df27c4d5cc1dda54ed ("Btrfs: change how subvolumes
are organized") and cleaned by 182608c8294b5fe9 ("btrfs: remove old
unused commented out
Lock owner and nesting level have been unused since day 1, probably
copy from the extent_buffer locking scheme without much thinking.
The locking of device replace is simpler and does not need any lock
nesting.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 --
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 --
Signed-off-by: David Sterba
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index 5f6ec80d374f..2e32584c635f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -3425,7 +3425,7 @@ do {
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:11:29PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 19.07.2018 17:49, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > From: Josef Bacik
> >
> > We do this dance in cleanup_ref_head and check_ref_cleanup, unify it
> > into a helper and cleanup the calling functions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef
On 19.07.2018 17:49, Josef Bacik wrote:
> From: Josef Bacik
>
> We do this dance in cleanup_ref_head and check_ref_cleanup, unify it
> into a helper and cleanup the calling functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
> ---
> fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c | 14 ++
>
On 2018年07月20日 18:17, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> chunk type BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA
> should not be set in a non-mixed chunk at the same time.
>
> Since BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA is 0x4 and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA is 0x1,
> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA &
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:49:52AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> For enospc_debug having the block rsvs is super helpful to see if we've
> done something wrong.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 15 +++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:49:28AM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:17:42PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 06:57:59PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 01:47:22PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > From: Josef Bacik
> > > >
>
On 2018-07-20 01:01, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.07.2018 16:30, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
On 2018-07-18 09:07, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:35 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
If you're doing a training presentation, it may be worth mentioning that
preallocation with
On 07/20/2018 09:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 07/19/2018 07:45 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:58:12PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
Move the section of the code which performs the check if the device is
indelible, move that into a helper function.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
On 07/19/2018 07:53 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:58:11PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
When the replace is running the fs_devices::num_devices also includes
the replace device, however in some operations like device delete and
balance it needs the actual num_devices without
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:17:38PM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> chunk type BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA
> should not be set in a non-mixed chunk at the same time.
>
> Since BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA is 0x4 and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA is 0x1,
> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA &
chunk type BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA
should not be set in a non-mixed chunk at the same time.
Since BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA is 0x4 and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA is 0x1,
BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA will be 0x0,
so we should judge type is one of
From: Filipe Manana
If we end up with logging an inode reference item which has the same name
but different index from the one we have persisted, we end up failing when
replaying the log with an errno value of -EEXIST. The error comes from
btrfs_add_link(), which is called from add_inode_ref(),
On 19.07.2018 17:50, Josef Bacik wrote:
> I noticed in a giant dbench run that we spent a lot of time on lock
> contention while running transaction commit. This is because dbench
> results in a lot of fsync()'s that do a btrfs_transaction_commit(), and
> they all run the delayed refs first
On 07/20/2018 02:35 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
On 07/19/2018 08:31 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:58:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
When we add a device to the RO mounted seed device, it becomes a
RW sprout FS. The following steps are used to hold the seed and
sprout
Noted. Thanks Dan.
-Anand
On 07/19/2018 04:10 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hello Anand Jain,
The patch a6500c9ef8ac: "btrfs: add helper function check device
delete able" from Jul 10, 2018, leads to the following static checker
warning:
fs/btrfs/volumes.c:1871
On 07/19/2018 08:31 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:58:08PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
When we add a device to the RO mounted seed device, it becomes a
RW sprout FS. The following steps are used to hold the seed and
sprout fs_devices.
(first two steps are not mandatory for
On 2018年07月20日 14:14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 20.07.2018 08:17, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
>> chunk type BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA
>> should not be set in a non-mixed chunk at the same time.
>>
>> Since BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA is 0x4 and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA
On 20.07.2018 08:17, Gu Jinxiang wrote:
> chunk type BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA
> should not be set in a non-mixed chunk at the same time.
>
> Since BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA is 0x4 and BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA is 0x1,
> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA &
48 matches
Mail list logo
