Hi liubo, (2011/06/01 19:44), Tsutomu Itoh wrote: > Hi, liubo, > > (2011/06/01 18:42), liubo wrote: >> On 06/01/2011 04:12 PM, liubo wrote: >>> On 06/01/2011 03:44 PM, liubo wrote: >>>>> On 05/31/2011 08:27 AM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: >>>>>>>>> The panic occurred when 'btrfs fi bal /test5' was executed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /test5 is as follows: >>>>>>>>> # mount -o space_cache,compress=lzo /dev/sdc3 /test5 >>>>>>>>> # >>>>>>>>> # btrfs fi sh /dev/sdc3 >>>>>>>>> Label: none uuid: 38ec48b2-a64b-4225-8cc6-5eb08024dc64 >>>>>>>>> Total devices 5 FS bytes used 7.87MB >>>>>>>>> devid 1 size 10.00GB used 2.02GB path /dev/sdc3 >>>>>>>>> devid 2 size 15.01GB used 3.00GB path /dev/sdc5 >>>>>>>>> devid 3 size 15.01GB used 3.00GB path /dev/sdc6 >>>>>>>>> devid 4 size 20.01GB used 2.01GB path /dev/sdc7 >>>>>>>>> devid 5 size 10.00GB used 2.01GB path /dev/sdc8 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Btrfs v0.19-50-ge6bd18d >>>>>>>>> # btrfs fi df /test5 >>>>>>>>> Data, RAID0: total=10.00GB, used=3.52MB >>>>>>>>> Data: total=8.00MB, used=1.60MB >>>>>>>>> System, RAID1: total=8.00MB, used=4.00KB >>>>>>>>> System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00 >>>>>>>>> Metadata, RAID1: total=1.00GB, used=216.00KB >>>>>>>>> Metadata: total=8.00MB, used=0.00 >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, Itoh san, >>>>> >>>>> I've come up with a patch aiming to fix this bug. >>>>> The problems is that the inode allocator stores one inode cache per root, >>>>> which is at least not good for relocation tree, cause we only find >>>>> new inode number from fs tree or file tree (subvol/snapshot). >>>>> >>>>> I've tested with your run.sh and it works well on my box, so you can try >>>>> this: >>>>> >> >> I've tested the following patch for about 1.5 hour, and nothing happened. >> And would you please test this patch? > > Thank you for your investigation. > > I will also test again. but, I cannot test until next week because I > will go to LinuxCon tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. >
I also tested. The problem did not occur though I executed the test script for about two hours. > Thanks, > Tsutomu > > >> >> thanks, >> >> From: Liu Bo<liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> [PATCH] Btrfs: fix save ino cache bug >> >> We just get new inode number from fs root or subvol/snap root, >> so we'd like to save fs/subvol/snap root's inode cache into disk. >> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo<liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/inode-map.c | 6 ++++++ >> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode-map.c b/fs/btrfs/inode-map.c >> index 0009705..8c0c25b 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode-map.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode-map.c >> @@ -372,6 +372,12 @@ int btrfs_save_ino_cache(struct btrfs_root *root, >> int prealloc; >> bool retry = false; >> >> + /* only fs tree and subvol/snap needs ino cache */ >> + if (root->root_key.objectid != BTRFS_FS_TREE_OBJECTID&& >> + (root->root_key.objectid< BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID || >> + root->root_key.objectid> BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID)) >> + return 0; >> + >> path = btrfs_alloc_path(); >> if (!path) >> return -ENOMEM; > -- 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
