use_block_rsv problems with 3.6.1

Hello, on i've seen the following backtrace a lot on 3.6.1: [ 2231.644332] use_block_rsv: 1451 callbacks suppressed [ 2231.645249] btrfs: block rsv returned -28 [ 2231.645250] [ cut here ] [ 2231.646163] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6323 use_block_rsv+0x19a/0x1a0

Re: use_block_rsv problems with 3.6.1

Am 11.10.2012 20:51, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:35:48PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hello, on i've seen the following backtrace a lot on 3.6.1: [ 2231.644332] use_block_rsv: 1451 callbacks suppressed [ 2231.645249] btrfs: block rsv returned -28 Yeah this is the last deep

problems with btrfs send / restore

Hello list, i wanted to try to out btrfs send and restore but i'm failing on a simple step: [server: /btrfs/target]# btrfs send /btrfs/src/\@snapshot/1 | btrfs receive /btrfs/target/\@snapshot/ At subvol /btrfs/src/@snapshot/1 At subvol 1 [server: /btrfs/target]# ls -la

Re: problems with btrfs send / restore

Am 11.10.2012 21:43, schrieb David Sterba: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote: [server: /btrfs/target]# btrfs send -i /btrfs/src/\@snapshot/1 /btrfs/src/\@snapshot/2 | btrfs receive /btrfs/target/\@snapshot/ At subvol /btrfs/src/@snapshot/2 At subvol 2 ERROR: failed

Re: problems with btrfs send / restore

Am 15.10.2012 12:16, schrieb Miao Xie: On thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:54:48 +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote: Am 11.10.2012 21:43, schrieb David Sterba: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:33:54PM +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote: [server: /btrfs/target]# btrfs send -i /btrfs/src/\@snapshot/1 /btrfs/src/\@snapshot/2

Re: problems with btrfs send / restore

Am 15.10.2012 21:42, schrieb Alex Lyakas: Is /btrfs/target/\@snapshot/ a subvolume or a directory? A simple directory. can you pls try the patch that I posted here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg19583.html I feel that you're hitting a similar issue here. Before you apply the

btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Hello list, i've seen this deadlock today and can reproduce it while using ceph. Is this a known bug? [ 599.514534] INFO: task kworker/6:0:29 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 599.530394] echo 0 /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs disables this message. [ 599.546832] kworker/6:0

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

on the most recent, it would be great if you could update and see if you can still reproduce, as there was a major change in btrfs recently for Ceph. I'm not sure what version it made it into. Regards, Michael On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag wrote: Hello list

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 25.06.2012 16:48, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 08:45:02AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Thats weird, sysrq+w should have a bunch of stacktraces but it's empty, so unless theres a bug theres nothing blocked. Is the box actually hung or is it just taking forever

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 25.06.2012 20:02, schrieb Josef Bacik: Can you turn that off and see if you can still reproduce the deadlock? If so sysrq+w again, if not then I know where to look ;). Thanks, without discard i can't reproduce but random write speed with ceph without discard is a LOT slower (around

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

With v3.4 the same. Can't go back more as this really results in very fast corruption. Any ideas how to debug? Stefan Am 25.06.2012 20:28, schrieb Stefan Priebe: Am 25.06.2012 20:02, schrieb Josef Bacik: Can you turn that off and see if you can still reproduce the deadlock? If so sysrq

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 25.06.2012 22:11, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 01:33:09PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: With v3.4 the same. Can't go back more as this really results in very fast corruption. Any ideas how to debug? What workload are you running? I have a ssd here with discard support I can

Re: btrfs call trace

completing. [adding linux-btrfs to cc] sage On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi, are these bugs known? [ 2157.104532] INFO: task kworker/2:2:6278 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 2157.130649] echo 0 /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs disables this message

Re: btrfs call trace

original - De: Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag À: Sage Weil s...@inktank.com Cc: ceph-de...@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Envoyé: Mardi 26 Juin 2012 00:12:10 Objet: Re: btrfs call trace Thanks it seems to be a problem with the discard option. I'm already talking

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 25.06.2012 22:23, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:20:31PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Am 25.06.2012 22:11, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 01:33:09PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: With v3.4 the same. Can't go back more as this really results in very fast

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 26.06.2012 22:14, schrieb Josef Bacik: I can't reproduce so I'm going to have to figure out a way to debug it through you, as soon as I think of something I will let you know. Thanks, Thanks. You mentioned that discard shouldn't have any positive effects on a SSD. May i see a

vanilla 3.8.3: btrfs: block rsv returned -28

Hello list, while testing btrfs with 3.8.3 i'm seeing this one several times. Is it known? WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6337 use_block_rsv+0x19d/0x1a0 [btrfs]() Hardware name: X9SCI/X9SCA btrfs: block rsv returned -28 Modules linked in: btrfs zlib_deflate lzo_compress tun sha256_generic

Re: vanilla 3.8.3: btrfs: block rsv returned -28

Hi, Am 18.03.2013 21:00, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 01:44:39PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hello list, while testing btrfs with 3.8.3 i'm seeing this one several times. Is it known? Yup, it's fine, I'm fixing it for 3.10. Thanks, Thanks, is it save to ignore

Re: No space left on device (28)

=18.14TB, used=15.05TB System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=1.94MB System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 Metadata, DUP: total=23.98GB, used=17.98GB Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 Stefan Am 21.03.2013 20:02, schrieb Chris Mason: Quoting Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG (2013-03-21 14:35:59) Hi Chris, Am

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 22.03.2013 16:54, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:56:41AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi Josef, Am 22.03.2013 14:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 06:11:56AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi Chris, Which kernel are you

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Jsoef, thanks! Am 22.03.2013 21:49, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 01:10:05PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi Josef, Am 22.03.2013 16:54, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:56:41AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi Josef, Am 22.03.2013 14:53, schrieb

Re: No space left on device (28)

25.03.2013 21:14, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 02:55:07PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi Jsoef, thanks! Ok I don't think the thing I just fixed will make any difference for you so here's another debug patch, just apply it on top of what I've already sent you and re-run and give me

Re: No space left on device (28)

HI, Am 26.03.2013 16:25, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:03:11AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi, Am 26.03.2013 15:44, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: no - it's just mounted with mount -o noatime :~# cat /proc/mounts | grep btrfs

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 18:45, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013 16:25, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:03:11AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi, Am 26.03.2013 15:44, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: no - it's just mounted

Re: No space left on device (28)

: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:05:36PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 18:45, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013 16:25, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:03:11AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi, Am 26.03.2013 15:44, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013

Re: No space left on device (28)

HI, Am 26.03.2013 20:38, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:22:20PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi, but when i transfer big files i see now this one: [20368.784736] INFO: task rsync:14911 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [20368.821978] echo 0 /proc/sys/kernel

Re: kernel 4.1: no space left on device

Am 27.06.2015 um 17:51 schrieb Roman Mamedov: On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:32:04 +0200 Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag wrote: Hi, while having some big btrfs volumes (44TB + 37TB). I see on a regular basis the no space left on device message. I'm only able to fix this. By running btrfs balance

kernel 4.1: no space left on device

Hi, while having some big btrfs volumes (44TB + 37TB). I see on a regular basis the no space left on device message. I'm only able to fix this. By running btrfs balance AND unmounting and remounting the btrfs volume. Is there any way to debug / workaround this one? Greets, Stefan -- To

Re: kernel 4.1: no space left on device

Am 27.06.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Ruslanas Gžibovskis: Hi, df -i ? Maybe inode? df -i for btrfs? # df -i |grep vmbackup /dev/md50 0 00 - /vmbackup Have a nice $day_time. On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:11 Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag mailto:s.pri...@profihost.ag

4.1.5: WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 4756 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7539 btrfs_alloc_tree_block

Hello, this is from vanilla 4.1.5: [29948.701309] [ cut here ] [29948.756302] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 4756 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:7539 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x431/0x4c0 [btrfs]() [29948.814644] BTRFS: block rsv returned -28 [29948.814647] Modules linked in: dm_mod

btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

Hello, today i experienced the following btrfs bug: Aug 20 11:59:18 debian-build kernel: [ 325.170036] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0330 Aug 20 11:59:18 debian-build kernel: [ 325.170144] IP: [813204c0] blk_get_backing_dev_info+0x10/0x20 Aug

btrfs trace / deadlock with 4.2-rc3

Hi, i got the following error today. 2015-07-31 21:00:19 ---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 12 2015-07-31 21:00:19 Kernel Offset: 0x0 from 0x8100 (relocation range: 0x8000-0x9fff) 2015-07-31 21:00:18

Re: kernel 4.1: no space left on device

Still nobody? Upgraded to 4.2-rc2 and i still see the out of space situation on two 30TB und 40TB arrays every week. Stefan Am 27.06.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Stefan Priebe: Hi, while having some big btrfs volumes (44TB + 37TB). I see on a regular basis the no space left on device message. I'm

Re: 4.2-rc6: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230

Am 13.11.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Filipe Manana: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.pri...@profihost.ag> wrote: Seen today: [150110.712196] [ cut here ] [150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230! [150110.841067] invalid

Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

Hi, this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and 50tb). btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily making use of cp --reflink=always on big files (200gb - 500gb). Sorry didn't know how to

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

Am 02.11.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Qu Wenruo: Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: Hi, this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and 50tb). btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily

Re: Regression in: [PATCH 4/4] btrfs: qgroup: account shared subtree during snapshot delete

Am 03.11.2015 um 20:26 schrieb Mark Fasheh: On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:34:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: Hi, this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb

btrfs goes readonly + No space left on 4.3

Hi, while trying to write to my volume btrfs gets readonly: btrfs fi show /vmbackup/ Label: none uuid: f4afaac2-c587-4ff7-87b1-19e6a483215f Total devices 1 FS bytes used 35.56TiB devid1 size 50.93TiB used 35.72TiB path /dev/mapper/stripe0-vmbackup btrfs-progs v4.1.2

slowdown after one week

Hi, while using a 40TB btrfs partition for VM backups. I see a massive slowdown after around one week. The backup task takes usally 2-3 hours. After one week it takes 20 hours. If i umount and remount the btrfs volume it takes 2-3 hours again. Kernel 4.1.1 Greets, Stefan -- To unsubscribe

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

Am 01.09.2015 um 02:06 schrieb Chris Mason: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:32:09PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason <c...@fb.com>: On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: I think this is btrfs using a

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

Am 11.09.2015 um 00:21 schrieb Jeff Mahoney: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/31/15 8:06 PM, Chris Mason wrote: On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:32:09PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason <c...@fb.com>: On Tue, Aug 25

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

Am 11.09.2015 um 21:05 schrieb Jeff Mahoney: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/11/15 2:55 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 8/25/15 5:00 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have a valid queue pointer in it's gendisk for

enospc while having a lot of free space with kernel 4.4

Hi, while running 4.4 i got the following enospc error today: [813092.863118] BTRFS info (device dm-0): 9 enospc errors during balance [813124.251578] [ cut here ] [813124.317337] WARNING: CPU: 16 PID: 12647 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5627

best way to make space_cache=v2 default?

Hi, what's the best way to make space_cache=v2 the default in my custom kernel build? Greets, Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at

Re: btrfs goes readonly + No space left on 4.3

just want to drop a note that all those ENOSPC msg are gone with v4.5 and space_cache=v2. Any plans to make space_cache=v2 default? Greets, Stefan Am 12.10.2015 um 09:00 schrieb Stefan Priebe: Hi, while trying to write to my volume btrfs gets readonly: btrfs fi show /vmbackup/ Label: none

Re: problems with btrfs send / restore

Am 15.10.2012 22:14, schrieb Alex Lyakas: Stefan, the second issue you're seeing was discussed here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg19672.html You can apply the patch I sent there meanwhile, but as Miao pointed out, I will need to make a better patch (hope will do it soon, together

Production use with vanilla 3.6.6

Hello list, is btrfs ready for production use in 3.6.6? Or should i backport fixes from 3.7-rc? Is it planned to have a stable kernel which will get all btrfs fixes backported? Greets Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to

problem with ceph and btrfs patch: set journal_info in async trans commit worker

Hello list, i wanted to try out ceph with latest vanilla kernel 3.7-rc5. I was seeing a massive performance degration. I see around 22x btrfs-endio-write processes every 10-20 seconds and they run a long time while consuming a massive amount of CPU. So my performance of 23.000 iops drops to

Re: problem with ceph and btrfs patch: set journal_info in async trans commit worker

Hi Miao, Am 15.11.2012 06:18, schrieb Miao Xie: Hi, Stefan On wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:42:07 +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hello list, i wanted to try out ceph with latest vanilla kernel 3.7-rc5. I was seeing a massive performance degration. I see around 22x btrfs-endio-write

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Am 25.06.2012 15:08, schrieb Josef Bacik: This isn't showing the guy who's actually trying to commit the transaction. Next time this happens can you do a sysrq+w and capture the output and post it here so we can see what everybody is doing? Thanks, Josef No problem. Kernel trace:

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

Thats weird, sysrq+w should have a bunch of stacktraces but it's empty, so unless theres a bug theres nothing blocked. Is the box actually hung or is it just taking forever? Maybe try sysrq+w again to see if the one you pasted was just a fluke? Thanks, This one looks better:

Re: btrfs deadlock in 3.5-rc3

[8131b4f3] btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x23/0x3f0 [39577.847557] RSP 880e3b861d90 [39577.847557] CR2: fe50 [39577.847558] ---[ end trace 27bdc0b318ad6463 ]--- Am 26.06.2012 22:48, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 02:19:17PM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Am 26.06.2012 22:14

No space left on device (28)

Hi, while copying a 15GB file to my btrfs volume i'm getting No space left on device. Some information: # btrfs filesystem df /mnt/ Data: total=18.14TB, used=15.05TB System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=1.94MB System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 Metadata, DUP: total=23.98GB, used=17.97GB Metadata:

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Chris, Am 21.03.2013 um 19:00 schrieb Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com: Quoting Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG (2013-03-21 04:03:04) Hi, while copying a 15GB file to my btrfs volume i'm getting No space left on device. Some information: # btrfs filesystem df /mnt/ Data: total

Re: No space left on device (28)

Should i try to downgrade? Greets, Stefan Am 21.03.2013 um 20:42 schrieb Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag: Yes, i've now upgraded to 3.9-rc3 same result. rsync: rename /mnt/.software/kernel/linux-3.9-rc3/drivers/infiniband/hw/amso1100/.c2_ae.h.WEhLGP - .software/kernel/linux-3.9-rc3

Re: No space left on device (28)

No this is fine it's rsync style same happens with cp. Am 22.03.2013 um 07:13 schrieb Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru: On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:42:28 +0100 Stefan Priebe s.pri...@profihost.ag wrote: I might be wrong here, but doesn't this rsync: rename /mnt/.software/kernel/linux-3.9-rc3

Re: No space left on device (28)

Already tried with value 5 did not help ;-( and it also happens with plain cp copying a 15gb file and aborts at about 80% Am 22.03.2013 um 07:24 schrieb cwillu cwi...@cwillu.com: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Roman Mamedov r...@romanrm.ru wrote: On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:42:28 +0100 Stefan

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi, Am 22.03.2013 07:41, schrieb cwillu: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG s.pri...@profihost.ag wrote: Already tried with value 5 did not help ;-( and it also happens with plain cp copying a 15gb file and aborts at about 80% You tried -musage=5? Your original

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Chris, Which kernel are you running? -chris vanilla 3.8.3. Ok, with the 3.9 merge window Josef changed how we do the reservations. Are you able to try a slightly more experimental kernel? any ideas what i can check? 3.9-rc3 gives me same results. Greets, Stefan -- To unsubscribe from

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 22.03.2013 14:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 06:11:56AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi Chris, Which kernel are you running? -chris vanilla 3.8.3. Ok, with the 3.9 merge window Josef changed how we do the reservations. Are you able to try

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:45:42AM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi, output here: [ 590.546162] returning enospc, space_info 3, size 0 reserved 0, flush 2, flush_state 7 dumping space info [ 590.548280] space_info 4 has 6439292928 free

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 14:30, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 06:55:23AM -0600, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: Hi Josef, Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:45:42AM -0600, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi, output here: [ 590.546162] returning

Re: No space left on device (28)

Hi, Am 26.03.2013 15:44, schrieb Josef Bacik: Am 26.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Josef Bacik: no - it's just mounted with mount -o noatime :~# cat /proc/mounts | grep btrfs /dev/mapper/raid54tb1 /mnt btrfs rw,noatime,space_cache 0 0 Ok I think I see what's going on. Can you try this patch and

4.2-rc6: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230

Seen today: [150110.712196] [ cut here ] [150110.776995] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:3230! [150110.841067] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP [150110.904472] Modules linked in: dm_mod netconsole ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables

4.2-rc6: cp reflink call trace

I'm getting the following trace on a daily basis when stacking a lot of cp --reflink commands. Somethinkg like: File a 80GB cp --reflink=always a b modify b cp --reflink=always b c modify c cp --reflink=always c d modify d ... [57623.099897] INFO: task cp:1319 blocked for more than 120

Re: slowdown after one week

Am 13.07.2015 um 13:20 schrieb Austin S Hemmelgarn: On 2015-07-11 02:46, Stefan Priebe wrote: Hi, while using a 40TB btrfs partition for VM backups. I see a massive slowdown after around one week. The backup task takes usally 2-3 hours. After one week it takes 20 hours. If i umount

out of space on big devices 30tb

Hello list, I get constantly no space messages friends m btrfs on big volumes. Btrfs balance always fixes it for 2-3 days. Now I'm in the process to recreate the fs. Are there any options I could pass to mods.btrfs which help to prevent this? Special use case heavy usage of cp reflink and

Re: Regression in btrfs: properly set the termination value of ctx->pos in readdir

Hi, the patch btrfs: properly set the termination value of ctx->pos in readdir introduces a regression to me. A lot of stuff runs in "endless" or long running loops. An example strace looks like this: msgsnd(0, {1, "\3\0\0\0\247\r\0\0g8\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\345<\1\0\0\0\0\0\35\0\0\0"...}, 56, 0)

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

Am 25.08.2015 um 11:00 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have a valid queue pointer in it's gendisk for -s_bdev. And there are some fishy looking -s_bdev assignments in the code which I suspect are related to it:

Re: btrfs no space BTRFS: block rsv returned -28

is disabled. Stefan Am 27.08.2015 um 08:23 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: Hi, today i had again the no space situation while having the device mounted with: enospc_debug # btrfs filesystem df /vmbackup/ Data, single: total=18.54TiB, used=17.94TiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used

btrfs no space BTRFS: block rsv returned -28

Hi, today i had again the no space situation while having the device mounted with: enospc_debug # btrfs filesystem df /vmbackup/ Data, single: total=18.54TiB, used=17.94TiB System, DUP: total=32.00MiB, used=2.83MiB Metadata, DUP: total=126.00GiB, used=99.45GiB GlobalReserve, single:

Re: btrfs regression since 4.X kernel NULL pointer dereference

> Am 25.08.2015 um 15:51 schrieb Chris Mason : > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:00:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> I think this is btrfs using a struct block_device that doesn't have >> a valid queue pointer in it's gendisk for ->s_bdev. And there are >> some fishy looking

Aborting unused transaction

Hi, [447062.309251] Modules linked in: dm_mod netconsole ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_stats cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_conservative bonding ext2 usbhid coretemp loop ehci_pci sb_edac ehci_hcd edac_core i2c_i801 i2c_core usbcore

Re: btrfs goes readonly + No space left on 4.3

Am 03.05.2016 um 00:05 schrieb Omar Sandoval: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:48:15PM +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote: >> just want to drop a note that all those ENOSPC msg are gone with v4.5 and >> space_cache=v2. Any plans to make space_cache=v2 default? >> >> Greets,

Re: ENOSPC / no space on very large devices

here we go... Am 20.07.2016 um 08:31 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > hello, > > On 07/20/2016 01:31 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> while i didn't had the problem for some month i'm now getting ENOSPC on >> a regular basis on one host. >&

Re: ENOSPC / no space on very large devices

Am 20.07.2016 um 09:35 schrieb Holger Hoffstätte: > On 07/20/16 07:31, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> while i didn't had the problem for some month i'm now getting ENOSPC on >> a regular basis on one host. > > Well, it's getting b

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

Am 29.07.2016 um 21:14 schrieb Omar Sandoval: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:11:53PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:40:26PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >>> Dear list, >>> >>> i'm seeing btrfs no space messages f

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

Am 29.07.2016 um 21:11 schrieb Omar Sandoval: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:40:26PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Dear list, >> >> i'm seeing btrfs no space messages frequently on big filesystems (> 30TB). >> >> In all cases i'm getting a trac

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

=5 SYSTEM (flags 0x2): balancing, usage=5 dmesg: [203784.411189] BTRFS info (device dm-0): 114 enospc errors during balance uname -r 4.7.0-rc6-29043-g8b8b08c Greets, Stefan Am 08.08.2016 um 08:17 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Am 04.08.2016 um 13:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profih

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

Am 29.07.2016 um 23:03 schrieb Josef Bacik: > On 07/29/2016 03:14 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:11:53PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:40:26PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost >>> AG wrote: >>>> Dear li

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

Hi Josef, anything i could do or test? Results with a vanilla next branch are the same. Stefan Am 11.08.2016 um 08:09 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Hello, > > the backtrace and info on umount looks the same: > > [241910.341124] [ cut here ] &

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

]--- [241915.982893] BTRFS: space_info 4 has 114577997824 free, is not full [241916.045103] BTRFS: space_info total=307627032576, used=193048903680, pinned=0, reserved=0, may_use=688537059328, readonly=131072 Greets, Stefan Am 10.08.2016 um 23:31 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Hi Jo

ENOSPC / no space on very large devices

Hi list, while i didn't had the problem for some month i'm now getting ENOSPC on a regular basis on one host. It would be great if someone can help me debugging this. Some basic informations: # touch /vmbackup/abc touch: cannot touch `/vmbackup/abc': No space left on device # df -h /vmbackup/

Re: memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

Am 04.08.2016 um 13:40 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Am 29.07.2016 um 23:03 schrieb Josef Bacik: >> On 07/29/2016 03:14 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:11:53PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 08:40:26PM +0

memory overflow or undeflow in free space tree / space_info?

Dear list, i'm seeing btrfs no space messages frequently on big filesystems (> 30TB). In all cases i'm getting a trace like this one a space_info warning. (since commit [1]). Could someone please be so kind and help me debugging / fixing this bug? I'm using space_cache=v2 on all those systems.

high cpu usage due to btrfs_find_space_for_alloc and rb_next

Hi, is there any chance to optimize btrfs_find_space_for_alloc / rb_next on big devices? I've plenty of free space but most of the time there's only low I/O but high cpu usage. perf top shows: 60,41% [kernel] [k] rb_next 9,74% [kernel] [k]

Re: [PATCH 0/3] introduce type based delalloc metadata reserve to fix some false enospc issues

Dear Qu, any news on your branch? I still don't see it merged anywhere. Greets, Stefan Am 04.01.2017 um 17:13 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > Hi Qu, > > Am 01.01.2017 um 10:32 schrieb Qu Wenruo: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> I'm trying to push it to for-next (will be

Re: [PATCH 0/3] introduce type based delalloc metadata reserve to fix some false enospc issues

Hi, can please anybody comment on that one? Josef? Chris? I still need those patches to be able to let btrfs run for more than 24hours without ENOSPC issues. Greets, Stefan Am 27.02.2017 um 08:22 schrieb Qu Wenruo: > > > At 02/25/2017 04:23 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: &

Re: btrfs and systemd

).d/ # cat > /etc/systemd/system/$(systemd-escape --suffix=mount -p /foo/bar/baz).d/timeout.conf < 2016-08-29 9:28 GMT+03:00 Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > <s.pri...@profihost.ag>: >> Hi Qu, >> >> Am 29.08.2016 um 03:48 schrieb Qu Wenruo: >>> >>> &g

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: should block unused block groups deletion work when allocating data space

trfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand(). Either method > will > work. > > But given that delete_unused_bgs_mutex's name length is longer than > bg_delete_sem, > I choose the first method, to create a new struct rw_semaphore bg_delete_sem > and > delete delete_unused_bgs_mutex :

btrfs_endio_write_helper hard lock blocked qorkqueues with kernel 4.8-rc5

Hi, today i've seen this one with 4.8-rc5 and the system was going to be unresponsible. BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=14 node=1 flags=0x0 nice=0 stuck for 33s! BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=14 node=1 flags=0x0 nice=-20 stuck for 33s! Showing busy workqueues and worker pools: workqueue

ENOSPACE linux 4.8-rc6 BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446743524878843904 free, is not full

Hi, this is vanilla linux 4.8-rc6 and i still have ENOSPC issues with btrfs - caused by wrong space_tree entries. [ 9736.921995] [ cut here ] [ 9736.923342] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 23942 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5734 btrfs_free_block_groups+0x35e/0x440 [btrfs] [

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

Thanks Wang, i applied them both on top of vanilla v4.8 - i hope this is OK. Will report back what happens. Greets, Stefan Am 06.10.2016 um 05:04 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > Hi, > > On 09/29/2016 03:27 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Am 29.09.2016 um 09:13 schrieb

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

Thanks Wang, i applied them both on top of vanilla v4.8 - i hope this is OK. Will report back what happens. Greets, Stefan Am 06.10.2016 um 05:04 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > Hi, > > On 09/29/2016 03:27 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Am 29.09.2016 um 09:13 schrieb

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

main difference between the system where oom happens is: - Single Xeon => no OOM - Dual Xeon / NUMA => OOM both 64GB mem. Am 07.10.2016 um 11:33 schrieb Holger Hoffstätte: > On 10/07/16 09:17, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 10/07/2016 03:03 PM, Stefan Priebe - P

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

Hi, > > On 09/29/2016 03:27 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Am 29.09.2016 um 09:13 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: >>>>> I found that compress sometime report ENOSPC error even in 4.8-rc8, >>>>> currently >>>> I cannot confirm tha

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

| | | | | vmcom 2.8G | vmlim 35.1G | Greets, Stefan Am 07.10.2016 um 09:17 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > Hi, > > On 10/07/2016 03:03 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Dear Wang, >> >> can't use v4.8.0 as i always get OOMs and total machine crashes. >> >> C

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

03:03 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Dear Wang, >> >> can't use v4.8.0 as i always get OOMs and total machine crashes. >> >> Complete traces with your patch and some more btrfs patches applied (in >> the hope in fixes the OOM but it did not): >>

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

Am 07.10.2016 um 10:07 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > hello, > > On 10/07/2016 04:06 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> and it shows: >> >> PAG | scan 33829e5 | steal 1968e3 | stall 0 | | >>| | swin 257071 | swo

Re: BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446742286429913088 free, is not full

Am 07.10.2016 um 09:17 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang: > Hi, > > On 10/07/2016 03:03 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> Dear Wang, >> >> can't use v4.8.0 as i always get OOMs and total machine crashes. >> >> Complete traces with your patch and some mor

  1   2   >