Re: btrfs development - question about crypto api integration

2018-11-30 Thread Chris Mason
On 29 Nov 2018, at 12:37, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > On 29.11.18 г. 18:43 ч., Jean Fobe wrote: >> Hi all, >> I've been studying LZ4 and other compression algorithms on the >> kernel, and seen other projects such as zram and ubifs using the >> crypto api. Is there a technical reason for not

Re: Linux-next regression?

2018-12-04 Thread Chris Mason
On 28 Nov 2018, at 11:05, Andrea Gelmini wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:16:52PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> But it's less a concerning problem since it doesn't reach latest RC, >> so >> if you could reproduce it stably, I'd recommend to do a bisect. > > No problem to bisect, usually. >

Re: Linux-next regression?

2018-12-05 Thread Chris Mason
On 5 Dec 2018, at 5:59, Andrea Gelmini wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:29:49PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: >> I think (hope) this is: >> >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201685 >> >> Which was just nailed down to a blkmq bug. It triggers wh

Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: wakeup cleaner thread when adding delayed iput

2018-11-27 Thread Chris Mason
On 27 Nov 2018, at 14:54, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:26:15AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 21.11.18 г. 21:09 ч., Josef Bacik wrote: >>> The cleaner thread usually takes care of delayed iputs, with the >>> exception of the btrfs_end_transaction_throttle path. The

Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: wakeup cleaner thread when adding delayed iput

2018-11-28 Thread Chris Mason
On 28 Nov 2018, at 14:06, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 03:08:08PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 07:59:42PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: >>> On 27 Nov 2018, at 14:54, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-05-09 Thread Chris Mason
case Simon Kirby (1) commits (+133/-109): Btrfs: Include the device in most error printk()s Nathaniel Yazdani (1) commits (+1/-1): btrfs: fix minor typo in comment Chris Mason (1) commits (+5/-0): Btrfs: allow superblock mismatch from older mkfs Vincent (1) commits (+3/-2): Btrfs

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: clean snapshots one by one

2013-05-10 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting David Sterba (2013-05-07 07:54:49) On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:41:06PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 988b860..4de2351 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -1690,15 +1690,19 @@ static int

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: image: handle superblocks correctly on fs with big blocks

2013-05-10 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting David Sterba (2013-05-06 17:11:20) Superblock is always 4k, but metadata blocks may be larger. We have to use the appropriate block size when doing checksums, otherwise they're wrong. The size coming in from the md should be correct. See this commit from my integration branch

Re: [PATCH 06/17] Btrfs: introduce grab/put functions for the root of the fs/file tree

2013-05-16 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Miao Xie (2013-05-16 03:22:37) I must say that the patch itself looks harmless, the reason is not good enough. I don't agree with you. It is perishing that The memory reclaim task is blocked for a long time. We should avoid this problem. synchronize_rcu and friends can take a

Re: [PATCH 06/17] Btrfs: introduce grab/put functions for the root of the fs/file tree

2013-05-16 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Liu Bo (2013-05-16 10:31:39) On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 07:54:17AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Miao Xie (2013-05-16 03:22:37) I must say that the patch itself looks harmless, the reason is not good enough. I don't agree with you. It is perishing that The memory

[GIT PULL] Btrfs updates

2013-05-18 Thread Chris Mason
/-2) Btrfs: fix off-by-one in fiemap (+2/-2) Gabriel de Perthuis (1) commits (+5/-5): btrfs: don't stop searching after encountering the wrong item Alexandre Oliva (1) commits (+30/-55): btrfs: do away with non-whole_page extent I/O Chris Mason (1) commits (+120/-72): Btrfs: use

Re: raid6: rmw writes all the time?

2013-05-23 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 08:55:47) Hi all, we got a new test system here and I just also tested btrfs raid6 on that. Write performance is slightly lower than hw-raid (LSI megasas) and md-raid6, but it probably would be much better than any of these two, if it wouldn't read all

Re: raid6: rmw writes all the time?

2013-05-23 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 09:22:41) On 05/23/2013 03:11 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 08:55:47) Hi all, we got a new test system here and I just also tested btrfs raid6 on that. Write performance is slightly lower than hw-raid (LSI megasas) and md

Re: raid6: rmw writes all the time?

2013-05-23 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 15:33:24) On 05/23/2013 03:34 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 09:22:41) On 05/23/2013 03:11 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 08:55:47) Hi all, we got a new test system here and I just also tested

Re: raid6: rmw writes all the time?

2013-05-23 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 15:45:36) On 05/23/2013 09:37 PM, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-23 15:33:24) Btw, any chance to generally use chunksize/chunklen instead of stripe, such as the md layer does it? IMHO it is less confusing to use n-datadisks

Re: raid6: rmw writes all the time?

2013-05-24 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Bernd Schubert (2013-05-24 04:35:37) Hello Chris, On 05/23/2013 10:33 PM, Chris Mason wrote: But I was using 8 drives. I'll try with 12. My benchmarks were on flash, so the rmw I was seeing may not have had as big an impact. I just further played with it and simply

Re: oops at mount

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Stefan Behrens (2013-05-30 08:55:58) On Thu, 30 May 2013 08:32:35 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 05:17:06AM -0600, Papp Tamas wrote: hi All, I'm new on the list. System: Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 13.04 Release: 13.04

Re: oops at mount

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Stefan Behrens (2013-05-30 10:59:59) On Thu, 30 May 2013 10:03:29 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Stefan Behrens (2013-05-30 08:55:58) Papp is using an Intel X18-M/X25-M/X25-V G2 SSD. At least with an Intel X25 SSD that identifies itself with INTEL SSDSA2M080 and on one

Re: testing stable pages being modified

2013-05-30 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Zach Brown (2013-05-30 18:36:10) 'stable' pages have always been a bit of a fiction. It's easy to intentionally modify stable pages under io with some help from page references that ignore mappings and page state. Here's little test that uses O_DIRECT to get the pinned aio ring

Re: testing stable pages being modified

2013-05-31 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-05-31 09:29:07) On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:24:30AM -0600, Zach Brown wrote: Changing O_DIRECT in flight has always been a deep dark corner case, and crc errors are the expected result. Have you found anyone doing this in real life? Agreed; and no, I

Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del

2013-06-04 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Christoph Hellwig (2013-06-04 10:48:56) On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 03:55:55PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote: Actually, when I compare the two invocations, I prefer the list_for_each_entry_del() variant over list_pop_entry(). while ((ref = list_pop_entry(prefs, struct

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix INT_MAX readdir hang, plus cleanups

2013-06-04 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-04 18:17:54) Hi gang, I finally sat down to fix that readdir hang that has been in the back of my mind for a while. I *hope* that the fix is pretty simple: just don't manufacture a fake f_pos, I *think* we can abuse f_version as an indicator that we shouldn't

Re: v3.9 bug at /fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:1567 after powercycle

2013-06-05 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-06-05 08:54:40) On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 09:59:05PM -0600, Sage Weil wrote: Hi- I'm pretty reliably triggering the following bug after powercycling an active btrfs + ceph workload and then trying to remount. Is this a known issue? Yeah sorry it's fixed

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix INT_MAX readdir hang, plus cleanups

2013-06-06 Thread Chris Mason
, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:16:53PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-04 18:17:54) Hi gang, I finally sat down to fix that readdir hang that has been in the back of my mind for a while. I *hope* that the fix is pretty simple: just don't manufacture a fake f_pos, I

Re: btrfs-cleaner Blocked on xfstests 068

2013-06-10 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Mitch Harder (2013-06-10 00:03:31) I'm running into a problem with the btrfs-cleaner thread becoming blocked on xfstests 068. The test locks up indefinitely without completing (normally it finished in about 45 seconds on my test box). I've replicated the issue on 3.10.0_rc5 and

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-11 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Sage Weil (2013-06-11 11:43:30) I'm also seeing this hang regularly with both 3.9 and 3.10-rc5. Is this is a known problem? In this case there is no powercycling; just a regular ceph-osd workload. Everyone here is waiting for the root node, but it isn't immediately clear who has the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Btrfs-progs: make some subdirs

2013-06-11 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-11 19:24:46) On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 06:15:16PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: These are some patches I've been sitting on for a while that I think clean up the btrfs-progs tree a bit; there are still quite a few files left in the top-level dir, but moving tests cmd

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix INT_MAX readdir hang, plus cleanups

2013-06-12 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-10 18:39:58) On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 07:16:53PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Zach Brown (2013-06-04 18:17:54) Hi gang, I finally sat down to fix that readdir hang that has been

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-06-13 Thread Chris Mason
Hi Linus, Please pull my for-linus branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus This is an assortment of crash fixes: Josef Bacik (3) commits (+9/-8): Btrfs: don't delete fs_roots until after we cleanup the transaction (+1/-1) Btrfs: init

Re: [3.10-rc6] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7961 btrfs_destroy_inode+0x265/0x2e0 [btrfs]()

2013-06-17 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 09:49:55) Hit this while running this script in a loop.. https://github.com/kernelslacker/io-tests/blob/master/setup.sh [34385.251507] [ cut here ] [34385.254068] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7961 btrfs_destroy_inode+0x265/0x2e0

Re: [3.10-rc6] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7961 btrfs_destroy_inode+0x265/0x2e0 [btrfs]()

2013-06-17 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 14:20:06) On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:39:42PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 09:49:55) Hit this while running this script in a loop.. https://github.com/kernelslacker/io-tests/blob/master/setup.sh [34385.251507

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-18 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Sage Weil (2013-06-18 11:56:37) On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Sage Weil wrote: On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Sage Weil (2013-06-11 11:43:30) I'm also seeing this hang regularly with both 3.9 and 3.10-rc5. Is this is a known problem? In this case

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-18 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-06-18 12:37:06) On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0400, Sage Weil wrote: I'm also seeing this hang regularly with both 3.9 and 3.10-rc5. Is this is a known problem? In this case there is no powercycling; just a regular ceph-osd workload. Have you gotten

Re: [3.10-rc6] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7961 btrfs_destroy_inode+0x265/0x2e0 [btrfs]()

2013-06-19 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 14:58:10) On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:42:27PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 14:20:06) On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:39:42PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 09:49:55) Hit this while running

Re: [3.10-rc6] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:7961 btrfs_destroy_inode+0x265/0x2e0 [btrfs]()

2013-06-19 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-19 14:34:50) On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:02:33PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 14:58:10) On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:42:27PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-17 14:20:06) On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:39

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Btrfs-progs: exhance btrfs-image to restore image onto multiple disks

2013-06-20 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-06-20 08:24:32) On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 08:05:30PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: This adds a 'btrfs-image -m' option, which let us restore an image that is built from a btrfs of multiple disks onto several disks altogether. This aims to address the following case, $

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-20 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Sage Weil (2013-06-20 17:56:19) On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Sage Weil wrote: Hi Chris, On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Chris Mason wrote: [...] Very long way of saying I think we're one release_path short. Sage, I haven't tested this at all yet, I was hoping to trigger it first

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-20 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Sage Weil (2013-06-20 21:00:21) On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Chris Mason wrote: Awesome, thanks for getting the traces for us. Looks like this one has been around since v3.7, so I'm not going to try and sneak it into the 3.10 final. I'll have it in the next merge window and for stable

Re: [PATCH 4/4] Btrfs-progs: exhance btrfs-image to restore image onto multiple disks

2013-06-20 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Liu Bo (2013-06-20 08:05:30) This adds a 'btrfs-image -m' option, which let us restore an image that is built from a btrfs of multiple disks onto several disks altogether. I'd like to pull this in, could you please rebase it against my current master? Thanks! -chris -- To unsubscribe

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-20 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Jon Nelson (2013-06-18 13:19:04) Josef Bacik jbacik at fusionio.com writes: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:43:30AM -0400, Sage Weil wrote: I'm also seeing this hang regularly with both 3.9 and 3.10-rc5. Is this is a known problem? In this case there is no powercycling; just a

Re: hang on 3.9, 3.10-rc5

2013-06-21 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Jon Nelson (2013-06-20 21:46:46) Is this what you are looking for? After this, the CPU gets stuck and I have to reboot. [360491.932226] [ cut here ] [360491.932261] kernel BUG at

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] Btrfs: introduce a tree for items that map UUIDs to something

2013-06-21 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Stefan Behrens (2013-06-21 04:47:20) On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:47:04 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: +/* for items that use the BTRFS_UUID_KEY */ +#define BTRFS_UUID_ITEM_TYPE_SUBVOL 0 /* for UUIDs assigned to subvols */ +#define BTRFS_UUID_ITEM_TYPE_RECEIVED_SUBVOL1 /* for UUIDs

Re: btrfs triggered lockdep WARN.

2013-06-27 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-27 10:58:24) Another bug caused by this script. https://github.com/kernelslacker/io-tests/blob/master/setup.sh I'm still struggling to reproduce that one here. I've tried every variation I can think of but I'll try again. I really hope you don't already have

Re: btrfs triggered lockdep WARN.

2013-06-27 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-27 11:19:22) On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:01:30AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Dave Jones (2013-06-27 10:58:24) Another bug caused by this script. https://github.com/kernelslacker/io-tests/blob/master/setup.sh I'm still struggling to reproduce

Re: [PATCH 0/6] fix INT_MAX readdir hang, plus cleanups

2013-07-01 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-07-01 08:54:35) On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 06:17:54PM -0400, Zach Brown wrote: Hi gang, I finally sat down to fix that readdir hang that has been in the back of my mind for a while. I *hope* that the fix is pretty simple: just don't manufacture a fake f_pos, I

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Btrfs-progs: introduce chunk recover function

2013-07-03 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Miao Xie (2013-07-03 09:25:08) This patchset introduced chunk recover function, which was implemented by scanning the whoel disks in the filesystem. Now, we can recover Single, Dup, RAID1 chunks, and RAID0, RAID10, RAID5, RAID6 metadata chunks. Really nice. I've integrated this with

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Btrfs-progs: introduce chunk recover function

2013-07-05 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Liu Bo (2013-07-04 00:06:47) On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 04:36:44PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Miao Xie (2013-07-03 09:25:08) This patchset introduced chunk recover function, which was implemented by scanning the whoel disks in the filesystem. Now, we can recover Single, Dup

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-07-09 Thread Chris Mason
Hi Linus, This Btrfs pull is available in two flavors: First, my for-linus branch has it against all the btrfs pulls from 3.10: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus Or, with a merge commit on top of 3.10 (master branch):

Re: [PATCH 3/5] Btrfs: don't cache the csum value into the extent state tree

2013-07-11 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Miao Xie (2013-07-11 01:25:38) Before applying this patch, we cached the csum value into the extent state tree when reading some data from the disk, this operation increased the lock contention of the state tree. Now, we just store the csum value into the bio structure or other

Re: [PATCH 2/5] Btrfs: add branch prediction hints in the read page end IO function

2013-07-11 Thread Chris Mason
Do you have benchmark numbers for how much these help? I hesitate to bring in the likely/unlikely unless we can see it on the benchmarks. (The patch does look fine though) -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to

Re: lz4 status?

2013-07-11 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting David Sterba (2013-07-10 18:54:54) On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:35:09PM -0500, Mitch Harder wrote: There's been a parallel effort to incorporate a general set of lz4 patches in the kernel. I see these patches are currently queued up in the linux-next tree, so we may see them in

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-08-10 Thread Chris Mason
Hi Linus Please pull my for-linus branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus These are assorted fixes, mostly from Josef nailing down xfstests runs. Zach also has a long standing fix for problems with readdir wrapping f_pos (or ctx-pos) These patches

Re: Question: btrfs-progs releases?

2013-08-17 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Duncan (2013-08-17 01:02:45) Tom Gundersen posted on Sat, 17 Aug 2013 11:19:19 +0800 as excerpted: I package btrfs-progs for Arch Linux, and I'm wondering about its current status. I have seen repeated talk of making regular releases, but so far we haven't had a proper

Re: 4 vol raid5 segfault on device delete

2013-08-17 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Craig Johnson (2013-08-16 12:50:59) I have a 4 device volume with raid5 - trying to remove one of the devices (plenty of free space) and I get an almost immediate segfault. Scrub shows no errors, repair show space cache invalid but nothing else (I remounted with clear cache to be

Re: Question: btrfs-progs releases?

2013-08-19 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Eric Sandeen (2013-08-17 23:50:51) On 8/17/13 10:25 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote: On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Chris Mason chris.ma...@fusionio.com wrote: The problem with the progs release is I keep finding more things I want to add. My local git tree has about a dozen commits

Re: btrfs:async-thread: atomic_start_pending=1 is set, but it's too late

2013-08-29 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Josef Bacik (2013-08-29 16:03:06) On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 05:16:42PM +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote: Greetings all, I see a following issue with spawning new threads for btrfs_workers that have atomic_worker_start set: # I have BTRFS that has 24Gb of total metadata, out of which

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-09-12 Thread Chris Mason
Hi Linus, Please pull my for-linus branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus This is against 3.11-rc7, but was pulled and tested against your tree as of yesterday. We do have two small incrementals queued up, but I wanted to get this bunch out the

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35) On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:52:43PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Guenter Roeck li...@roeck-us.net wrote: fs/btrfs/ioctl.c: In function 'btrfs_ioctl_file_extent_same': fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2802:3: error: implicit

Re: Build failures due to commit 416161db (btrfs: offline dedupe)

2013-09-13 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Mark Fasheh (2013-09-13 13:58:01) On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:00:22PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Guenter Roeck (2013-09-13 12:35:35) I'm happy to fix this with a bigger put of the info struct, just let me know the preferred arch-happy solution. In fact old versions

Re: Handful of btrfs fixes for 3.11.x stable

2013-09-20 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting David Sterba (2013-09-20 12:34:39) Hi stable team, please add the following commits to 3.11 tree, they fix user visible problems, were tested and are now present in 3.12-rc1. 3d05ca371200b3366530621abf73769024581b79 b13a004528c3e5eb060a26eee795f5a0da7bfe9f

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-09-22 Thread Chris Mason
Hi Linus, Please pull my for-linus branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus These are mostly bug fixes and a two small performance fixes. The most important of the bunch are Josef's fix for a snapshotting regression and Mark's update to fix compile

Re: Issue building a file based rootfs image with mkfs.btrfs

2013-09-28 Thread Chris Mason
Quoting Saul Wold (2013-09-19 14:19:34) Hi there, I am attempting to build a rootfs image from an existing rootfs directory tree. I am using the 0.20 @ 194aa4a of Chris's git repo. The couple problem I saw was that the target image file needed to exist, although I think I can patch

RE: Handful of btrfs fixes for 3.11.x stable

2013-10-01 Thread Chris Mason
Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you had already queued them. Both are fine with me. -chris From: Greg KH [gre...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:49 PM To: dste...@suse.cz; sta...@vger.kernel.org; Josef Bacik; Chris Mason; linux

RE: Issue building a file based rootfs image with mkfs.btrfs

2013-10-01 Thread Chris Mason
:50 PM To: Chris Mason Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Issue building a file based rootfs image with mkfs.btrfs On 09/28/2013 05:29 AM, Chris Mason wrote: Quoting Saul Wold (2013-09-19 14:19:34) Hi there, I am attempting to build a rootfs image from an existing rootfs directory

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

2013-10-05 Thread Chris Mason
Hi Linus, Please pull my for-linus branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus I've merged my for-linus up to 3.12-rc3 because the top commit is only meant for 3.12. The rest of the fixes are also available in my master branch on top of my last 3.11

Re: [Btrfs-devel] cloning file data

2008-04-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Friday 25 April 2008, Zach Brown wrote: We've written into the middle of that 100MB extent, and we need to do COW. One option is to read the whole thing, change 4k and write it all back. Instead, btrfs does something like this (+/- off by need more coffee errors): file pos = 0 - [

Btrfs v0.14 Released

2008-04-29 Thread Chris Mason
Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs. For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page: http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org The oss.oracle.com Btrfs project page will

Re: [Btrfs-devel] cloning file data

2008-04-29 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Sage Weil wrote: Hi- I'm working on a clone ioctl that will quickly and efficiently duplicate the contents of a file, e.g. Just FYI, I didn't sneak this into v0.14 because I didn't quite have the cycles to test it. It'll go in this week. -chris -- To unsubscribe

Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released

2008-05-01 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote: On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Chris Mason wrote: Hello everyone, Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has changed

Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released

2008-05-01 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote: [ btrfs oops on ubuntu ] This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this patch: If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUNTU_KERNEL I can use, I'll do it. Jeff Mahoney has a similar patch for SUSE that I've been meaning to merge,

Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released

2008-05-02 Thread Chris Mason
On Friday 02 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch: Do we really need to support kernels compiled

Re: [Btrfs-devel] cloning file data

2008-05-02 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday 24 April 2008, Sage Weil wrote: Hi- I'm working on a clone ioctl that will quickly and efficiently duplicate the contents of a file, e.g. Sage's work has been pushed into the stable and unstable trees, along with a small command called bcp to trigger the clone ioctls. bcp is

Online device removal pushed to the unstable tree

2008-05-13 Thread Chris Mason
Hello everyone, The unstable tree is still format compatible with v0.14, and it now includes the ability to remove devices online. In mirror configurations, IO errors to one of the mirrors are also handled, although it doesn't currently kick off a rebuild or other magic. To try things out:

Re: [RFC][PATCH]btrfs delete ordered inode handling fix

2008-05-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Thursday 22 May 2008, Mingming wrote: [ ... ] I get around this by testing for dirty/writeback pages before removing the inode from the ordered list. If another writer allocates blocks to the file, it will be added back to the list. I see.:) How about patch below? Looks good, I'll

Re: Drop dcache entry after creating snapshot and subvolume

2008-05-28 Thread Chris Mason
On Wednesday 28 May 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:41:24AM +0200, Sven Wegener wrote: I have a patch (see below) that does an explicit d_drop() on the dentry after looking it up via d_find_alias() and d_lookup(), starting at the root inode. Currently it's for

Re: btrfs panic - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 61s! [fs_mark:4573]

2008-06-03 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:52:47PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: I can reliably get btrfs to panic by running my fs_mark code on a newly created file system with lots of threads on an 8-way box. If this is too aggressive, let me know ;-) Here is a summary of the panic: I think this is due

Re: btrfs device management

2008-06-09 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:43:58 -0400 Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 05:53:37PM -0600, Yes, I plan to work on adding properly designed multiple device support for btrfs and my upcoming similar xfs work. I'll live in good old mount and libvolume_id. I

Re: btrfs device management

2008-06-09 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 14:45 +0100, Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: Hi all, On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:43:58 -0400 Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 05:53:37PM -0600, Yes, I plan to work

Re: [PATCH] btrfs orphan support

2008-07-10 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 14:43 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: Hello, This patch makes it so btrfs can handle unlink's and truncates that are interrupted. On unlink/truncate an orphan item is added with the location of the inode. When the truncation/deletion is completed the orphan item is

Btrfs biweekly conference call

2008-07-15 Thread Chris Mason
Hello everyone, Starting tomorrow, we'll have public conference calls every other week to discuss Btrfs development plans. IBM is providing the conference call bridge (thanks Mingming) Wednesday 10:30-11:00am (US Pacific time) * Dial-in Number(s): * Toll: 1-314-655-1416 * Toll Free:

Re: Algorithm for nodatacow is broken

2008-07-16 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 15:41 +0800, Yan Zheng wrote: Hello, Yesterday, I realized the algorithm for nodatacow is broken, it can't reliably detect whether a given extent is referenced by only one snapshot. I had to change around nodatacow back in May because it was definitely broken in the

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix nodatacow check

2008-07-18 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:13 +0800, Yan Zheng wrote: Hello, This patch fixes the nodatacow check. The new test function can always detect extents referenced by multiple snatshots. If a extent was allocated in recent two transactions and no snapshot happened in these two transactions, we can

Re: [PATCH 5/5] updated patch for new dir format

2008-07-18 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 12:43 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: Hello, Last one, applies cleanly. You'll want to apply these in order otherwise they won't apply properly. Thanks, I'm getting: rm: cannot remove directory `clients/client44': Directory not empty On dbench 50 with this one. Could

Re: New data=ordered code pushed out to btrfs-unstable

2008-07-20 Thread Chris Mason
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 08:19 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 18:35 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: Chris Mason wrote: On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 16:09 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: Just to kick the tires, I tried the same test that I ran last week

Re: New data=ordered code pushed out to btrfs-unstable

2008-07-21 Thread Chris Mason
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 09:46 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: Just to kick the tires, I tried the same test that I ran last week on ext4. Everything was going great, I decided to kill it after 6 million files or so and restart. Well, it looks like I

Re: kernel BUG at extent_map.c:275!

2008-07-22 Thread Chris Mason
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:35 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 06:21 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: What kind of box is this? The current code should be fine on big endian, but that hasn't been tested recently. It's a PowerBook (ppc32). The bug is a BUG_ON(spin_trylock(tree

Re: [PATCH] Use do_div() instead of native 64-bit division in btrfs_ordered_sum_size()

2008-07-23 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 07:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Chris, can you please put this patch in? Without it btrfs can't be loaded on 32bit platforms. I've pushed out a slightly different fix. The ordered extents are based on ram writeback, and so an unsigned long is enough. -chris --

Re: [PATCH] Use do_div() instead of native 64-bit division in btrfs_ordered_sum_size()

2008-07-23 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 17:07 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 09:28 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 07:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Chris, can you please put this patch in? Without it btrfs can't be loaded on 32bit platforms. I've pushed

Re: kernel BUG at extent_map.c:275!

2008-07-24 Thread Chris Mason
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 14:04 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:42 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 13:03 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Well, the test is there to make sure the caller is doing the right thing. Before we remove

Most pending patches in btrfs-unstable

2008-07-24 Thread Chris Mason
Hello everyone, There are still a few pending patches on the mailing list for me to pull in, but btrfs-unstable now has a shiny new disk format including: * ACL support * Orphan inode prevention * A new directory format I think I'll code name v0.16 the Josef Bacik disk format special. Thanks

Re: umount oops

2008-07-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:14 +0200, Lukas Vacek wrote: sorry, I made a typo in the testcase (the second mount) Basically, it might be enough to mount two different btrfs filesystems to two different locations, umount one of them and watch /var/log/kern.log for the oops Thanks for this bug

Re: [PATCH] async-thread: fix possible memory leak

2008-07-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:34 +0800, Li Zefan wrote: When kthread_run() returns failure, this worker hasn't been added to the list, so btrfs_stop_workers() won't free it. Thanks, I've queued this one up for inclusion. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe

Re: New data=ordered code pushed out to btrfs-unstable

2008-07-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:23 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: [ lock timeouts and stalls ] Ok, I've made a few changes that should lower overall contenion on the allocation mutex. I'm getting better performance on a 3 million file run, please give it a shot. After an update, clean

Re: umount oops

2008-07-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 15:54 +0200, Lukas Vacek wrote: the newest in the mercurial repo changeset: 558:9da425337329 tag: tip This should be fixed by the unstable tree, the transaction work queues were not properly being torn down. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [PATCH] initial version of reference cache

2008-07-25 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:29 -0500, Yan Zheng wrote: Hello, This is the initial version of leaf reference cache. The cache stores leaf node's extent references in memory, this can improve the performance of snapshot dropping. Outlines of this patch are (1) allocate struct dirty_root when

Re: [PATCH] initial version of reference cache

2008-07-28 Thread Chris Mason
Yan and I are hammering this out a little, I've attached my current patches. I was seeing cache misses after long stress runs, which I think is coming from references on the higher levels of the tree making us skip some leaves while dropping the transaction that added them. My new version using

Re: New data=ordered code pushed out to btrfs-unstable

2008-07-28 Thread Chris Mason
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 16:09 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: Just to kick the tires, I tried the same test that I ran last week on ext4. Everything was going great, I decided to kill it after 6 million files or so and restart. The unmount has taken a very, very long time - seems like we are

Re: [PATCH] initial version of reference cache

2008-07-28 Thread Chris Mason
On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 17:53 +0100, Miguel Sousa Filipe wrote: Hi all, On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yan and I are hammering this out a little, I've attached my current patches. I was seeing cache misses after long stress runs, which I think

Re: [PATCH] New nodatacow checker

2008-07-29 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 01:40 +0800, Yan Zheng wrote: Hello, This is updated version of nodatacow patch. To check whether a given file extent is referenced by multiple snapshots, the checker walks down the fs tree through dead root and checks all tree blocks in the path. We can easily detect

Re: [PATCH] implement memory reclaim for leaf reference cache

2008-07-30 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:52 +0800, Yan Zheng wrote: Hello, The memory reclaiming issue happens when snapshot exists. In that case, some cache entries may not be used during old snapshot dropping, so they will remain in the cache until umount. The patch adds a field to struct btrfs_leaf_ref

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >