On 23.02.2018 01:34, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年02月23日 06:44, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>> On 12/22/17 1:18 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Unlike reservation calculation used in inode rsv for metadata, qgroup
>>> doesn't really need to care things like csum size or extent usage for
>>> whole tree COW.
On 2018/02/16 4:04, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
> +static enum btrfs_util_error openat_parent_and_name(int dirfd, const char
> *path,
> + char *name, size_t name_len,
> + int *fd)
> +{
On 2018年02月23日 16:14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 23.02.2018 01:34, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年02月23日 06:44, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> On 12/22/17 1:18 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Unlike reservation calculation used in inode rsv for metadata, qgroup
doesn't really need to care thing
On 22 February 2018 at 23:57, David Sterba wrote:
[..]
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547319
>>
>> Laura Abbott changed:
>>
>>What|Removed |Added
>>
>>
On 23.02.2018 11:06, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年02月23日 16:14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23.02.2018 01:34, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018年02月23日 06:44, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 12/22/17 1:18 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Unlike reservation calculation used in inode rsv for met
Hi,
Can someone explain me why there is a difference in the number of
blocks reported by df and du commands below?
=
# df -h /dc
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/drbd1 746G 519G 225G 70% /dc
# btrfs filesystem df -h /dc/
Data, single: total=518.01
[snip]
>>
>> We don't need to do such check at call site.
>>
>> Just do the calculation (which should be really simple, as simple as
>> nodesize * nr_items_to_add), and pass it to btrfs_qgroup_reserve_* APIs,
>> which would handle the quota enabled check.
>>
>>>
>>> be contained into the block rsv
On 2018-02-23 06:21, Shyam Prasad N wrote:
Hi,
Can someone explain me why there is a difference in the number of
blocks reported by df and du commands below?
=
# df -h /dc
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/drbd1 746G 519G 225G 70% /dc
# btrfs fil
Hello,
we have a btrfs-based backup system using btrfs snapshots and rsync. Sometimes,
we hit ENOSPC bug and the filesystem is remounted read-only. However, there's
still plenty of unallocated space according to "btrfs fi usage". So I think this
isn't another edge condition when btrfs runs out of
On 2/22/18 6:34 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年02月23日 06:44, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>> On 12/22/17 1:18 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> Unlike reservation calculation used in inode rsv for metadata, qgroup
>>> doesn't really need to care things like csum size or extent usage for
>>> whole tree COW.
>>>
On 02/22/2018 06:37 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018年02月23日 00:31, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
On 02/21/2018 11:56 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018年02月22日 12:52, Qu Wenruo wrote:
btrfs_read_block_groups() is used to build up the block group cache for
all block groups, so it will iterate all block group
Hi,
[Fsync issue in btrfs]
In addition to the above, I would like to bring to your notice that :
After doing a fallocate or fallocate zero_range with keep size option,
a fsync() operation would have no effect at all. If we crash after the
fsync, on recovery the blocks allocated due to the fallocat
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Jayashree Mohan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Fsync issue in btrfs]
> In addition to the above, I would like to bring to your notice that :
> After doing a fallocate or fallocate zero_range with keep size option,
> a fsync() operation would have no effect at all. If we crash a
On 23.02.2018 00:50, Chris Murphy wrote:
The only thing I can think of is something's updating metadata due to
relatime mount option. Maybe try noatime? At 9GiB, really it's 4.5GiB
because whatever is being written is being doubled by raid1 profile
and multiple devices. There is a case of wander
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:50:32AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:13:38PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:50:48PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > I have more comments or maybe questions about the future development
> > > workflow, but at this poi
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 01:11:37AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> We aren't verifying the parameter passed to the subvolid mount option,
> so we won't report and fail the mount if a junk value is specified for
> example, -o subvolid=abc.
> This patch verifies the subvolid option with match_u64.
>
> Si
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 01:13:00AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> We have btrfs_fs_info::data_chunk_allocations and
> btrfs_fs_info::metadata_ratio declared as unsigned which would
> be unsinged int and kernel style prefers unsigned int over bare
> unsigned. So this patch changes them to u32.
>
> Sign
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:58:42PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Moving between opposite endianness will report bogus numbers in sysfs,
> and mount may fail as the root will not be restored correctly. If the
> filesystem is always used on a same endian host, this will not be a
> problem.
> Fix this by
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:55:48AM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/02/16 4:04, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > set_default_subvolume() is a trivial ioctl(), but there's no ioctl() for
> > get_default_subvolume(), so we need to search the root tree.
> >
> > Signed-of
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:03:05AM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/02/16 4:05, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > btrfs_util_f_deleted_subvolumes() replaces enumerate_dead_subvols() and
> > btrfs_util_f_subvolume_info() replaces is_subvolume_cleaned().
> >
> > Si
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 01:23:45PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/02/16 4:05, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
> > ---
> > messages.h | 13
> > props.c| 69
> > +++-
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:27:52PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/02/16 4:04, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
>
> > +PUBLIC enum btrfs_util_error btrfs_util_subvolume_path_fd(int fd, uint64_t
> > id,
> > + char **path_ret
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:40:45PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/02/16 4:04, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
>
> > +PUBLIC enum btrfs_util_error btrfs_util_create_subvolume_iterator(const
> > char *path,
> > + ui
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:50:36PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> In the same function we just ran btrfs_alloc_device() which means the
> btrfs_device::resized_list is sure to be empty and we are protected
> with the btrfs_fs_info::volume_mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Reviewed-by: David Sterb
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 05:24:04PM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> On 2018/02/16 4:04, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
>
> > +static enum btrfs_util_error openat_parent_and_name(int dirfd, const char
> > *path,
> > + char *name, size_t
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:46:25PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> The replace target device can be missing in which case we don't
> allocate a missing btrfs_device when mounted with the -o degraded.
> So check the device before access.
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:26:35AM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/02/16 4:05, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
>
> > +static struct subvol_list *btrfs_list_deleted_subvols(int fd,
> > + struct
> > btrfs_list_filter_set *
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 07:51:38PM +, Dmitriy Gorokh wrote:
> On detaching of a disk which is a part of a RAID6 filesystem, the following
> kernel OOPS may happen:
>
> [63122.680461] BTRFS error (device sdo): bdev /dev/sdo errs: wr 0, rd 0,
> flush 1, corrupt 0, gen 0
> [63122.719584] BTRFS
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 02:41:27PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > static int cmd_subvol_sync(int argc, char **argv)
> > > {
> > > int fd = -1;
> > > - int i;
> > > int ret = 1;
> > > DIR *dirstream = NULL;
> > > - u64 *ids = NULL;
> > > - int id_count;
> > > + uint64_t *ids;
> >
> > "id
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:12:56AM +0900, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>
> On 2018/02/16 4:04, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
> > ---
> > libbtrfsutil/btrfsutil.h| 21 +++
> > libbtrfsutil/python/btrfsutilpy.h | 3
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:53:36AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Using any kind of memory barriers around atomic operations which have
> a return value is redundant, since those operations themselves are
> fully ordered. atomic_t.txt states:
>
> - RMW operations that have a return value are
It is still hanging afterall. Currently, it hangs on mount:
[154422.778624] mount D0 27894 27742 0x0084
[154422.778625] Call Trace:
[154422.779018] __schedule+0x28d/0x880
[154422.779494] schedule+0x36/0x80
[154422.779886] io_schedule+0x16/0x40
[154422.780288] do_read_cache_
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 02:37:26PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> When performing an unlock on an extent buffer we'd like to order the
> decrement of extent_buffer::blocking_writers with waking up any
> waiters. In such situations it's sufficient to use smp_mb__after_atomic
> rather than the heavy
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 02:28:30PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Obtain the stripes info from the map directly and so no need
> to pass it as an argument.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 14 +++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 02:28:31PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Drop optimal argument from the function find_live_mirror()
> as we can deduce it in the function itself.
Yeah the argument is not necessary. It's another misleading variable
name, as it's not 'optimal' but a fallback. Please rename it.
On 02/21/2018 05:20 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 02/22/2018 12:31 AM, Howard McLauchlan wrote:
>> Btrfs has two mount options for SSD optimizations: ssd and ssd_spread.
>> Presently there is an option to disable all SSD optimizations, but there
>> isn't an option to disable just ssd_spread.
The latest released kernel is 4.15
--
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
On 2018年02月24日 00:29, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
> On 02/22/2018 06:37 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> On 2018年02月23日 00:31, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
>>> On 02/21/2018 11:56 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018年02月22日 12:52, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> btrfs_read_block_groups() is used to build up the block gr
38 matches
Mail list logo