Re: [PATCH] ioctl_getfsmap.2: document the GETFSMAP ioctl

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On May 10, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Eric Biggers wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:14:37PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> [cc btrfs, since afaict that's where most of the dedupe tool authors hang

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote: > On 23 November 2016 at 20:58, Dave Jones wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:34:19PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: >> >> > [ 317.689216] BUG: Bad page state in process kworker/u8:8 pfn:4d8fd4

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Oct 24, 2016 5:00 PM, "Linus Torvalds" <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > > > Now the fallocate thread catches up and *exits*. Dave's test makes a > > new

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: >>> >>> [69943.450108] Oops: 0003 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC >> >> This is an u

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 05:32:21PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > > > On 10/22/2016 11:20 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 04:02:45PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > It could be

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dave Jones <da...@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:01:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Dave Jones <da...@codemonkey.org.uk> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Dave Jones <da...@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:05:57PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > One possible debugging approach would be to change: > > > > #define NR_CACHED_STACKS 2 > > > &g

Re: bio linked list corruption.

On 10/18/2016 05:10 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Seems to be the whole thing: Ahh. On lkml, so I do have it in my mailbox, but Dave changed the subject line when he tested on ext4 rather than btrfs.. Anyway, the corrupted

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:08:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> > So what I'm hearing is that I should drop the reflink and dedup flags and >> > change this system call only perform a

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > On 10/12/2015 07:17 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 07:22:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:52PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: This allows us to have

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> One might argue that reflink is like copy + immediate dedupe. > > Not, it's not. It's all that and more, becau

Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] vfs: copy_file_range() can do a pagecache copy with splice

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > The NFS server will need some kind offallback for filesystems that don't > have any kind of copy acceleration, and it should be generally useful to > have an in-kernel copy to avoid lots of switches between kernel

Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] VFS: In-kernel copy system call

On Sep 13, 2015 4:25 PM, "Dave Chinner" <da...@fromorbit.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:08:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Can we have a clean way to figure out whether two file ranges are the > > same in a way that allows false negatives

Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] VFS: In-kernel copy system call

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Chris Mason <c...@fb.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:08:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:

Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] VFS: In-kernel copy system call

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Anna Schumaker wrote: > On 09/08/2015 11:21 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I see copy_file_range() is a reflink() on BTRFS? >> That's a bit surprising, as it avoids the copy completely. >> cp(1) for example considered doing a BTRFS clone by

Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] VFS: In-kernel copy system call

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.w...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 08, 201

[BTRFS-specific] Re: Dirty deleted files cause pointless I/O storms (unless truncated first)

[cc: btrfs] On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:59:23PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: The code below runs quickly for a few iterations, and then it slows down and the whole system becomes laggy for far too long. Removing

OOPS on 3.11.6

7d04a6835a0093fd ]--- This issue has survived a reboot. (The taint flag is due to a bogus BGRT table in my EFI BIOS. It's not corrupting any kernel data structures.) --Andy -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix an oops of log replay

in 2.6.39, I believe. Tested-by: Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --Andy -- 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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:4676!

On 06/06/2011 06:19 AM, Marek Otahal wrote: Hello, the issue happens every time when i have to hard power-off my notebook (suspend problems). With kernel 2.6.39 the partition is unmountable, solution is to boot 2.6.38 kernel which 1/ is able to mount the partition, 2/ by doing that fixes the

Re: Rename+crash behaviour of btrfs - nearly ext3!

Chris Mason wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:03:49PM +0200, Jakob Unterwurzacher wrote: On 18/05/10 02:59, Chris Mason wrote: Ok, I upgraded to 2.6.34 final and switched to defconfig. I only did the rename test ( i.e. no overwrite ), the window is now 1.1s, both with vanilla and with the

[PATCH] Add .gitignore

Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski l...@mit.edu --- .gitignore | 13 + 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 .gitignore diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 000..4d2ab6f --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +*.o

Re: Do you think it's time to tag a new version number for btrfs-progs?

Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: On Sunday 07 March 2010, Andy Lutomirski wrote: Zhu Yanhai wrote: Hi Chris, The latest release of btrfs-progs is still v0.19, at 2009-06-11. As it already has some major features since then, do you think it's time to give it a 0.20 version number and release

Re: Do you think it's time to tag a new version number for btrfs-progs?

Zhu Yanhai wrote: Hi Chris, The latest release of btrfs-progs is still v0.19, at 2009-06-11. As it already has some major features since then, do you think it's time to give it a 0.20 version number and release? It will be nice for the various Linux distribution teams to integrate. Have

Re: BUG: Link from sub volume, then remove the subvolume - wrong link

TARUISI Hiroaki wrote: Hi, I think message:'Operation not permitted' is more proper for this problem than 'Invalid cross-device link' simply because this link is not cross-device link. Of course, this operation is prohibited not by security policy but by inner limitation of btrfs, this usage

Re: Snapshot mysteries (and an oops)

Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: Hi Andrew On Friday 11 December 2009, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: Hi all- [test]# rm -rf snap1 rm: cannot remove directory `snap1': Directory not empty [test]# ls snap1 [test]# OK, so rmdir can't remove snapshots. (Is there any good reason for that?) The volume is