On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 21:36 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > there is no point in re-creating so many btrfs kernel's logic in user > space. its just unnecessary, when kernel is already doing it. use > some interface to get info from kernel after device is registered, > (not necessarily mounted). so progs can be as sleek as possible. > to me it started as just one more bug now we have fixed so many many. > It all needs one good interface for kernel which provides anything > anything from the kernel. >
Oh, the interface for kernel you described is really interesting. But how to store the seed/sprout relationships so that we can fetch them correctly for umounted btrfs? -Gui > > On 10/23/14 16:52, Gui Hecheng wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 16:13 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > >> > >> Some of the disks on my system were missing and I was able to hit > >> this issue. > >> > >> > >> ---------------- > >> Check tree block failed, want=12582912, have=0 > >> read block failed check_tree_block > >> Couldn't read chunk root > >> warning devid 2 not found already > >> Check tree block failed, want=143360, have=0 > >> read block failed check_tree_block > >> Couldn't read chunk root > >> warning, device 4 is missing > >> warning, device 3 is missing > >> warning, device 2 is missing > >> warning, device 1 is missing > >> ---------------- > >> > >> > >> Did a bisect and it leads to this following patch. > >> > >> ---------------- > >> commit 915902c5002485fb13d27c4b699a73fb66cc0f09 > >> > >> btrfs-progs: fix device missing of btrfs fi show with seed devices > >> ---------------- > >> > >> Also this patch stalls ~2sec in the cmd btrfs fi show, on my system > >> with 48 disks. > >> > >> Also a simple test case hits some warnings... > >> > >> ---------------- > >> mkfs.btrfs -draid1 -mraid1 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc > >> mount /dev/sdb /btrfs && fillfs /btrfs 100 && umount /btrfs > >> wipefs -a /dev/sdb > >> modprobe -r btrfs && modprobe btrfs > >> mount -o degraded /dev/sdb /btrfs > >> btrfs fi show > >> Label: none uuid: 9844cd05-1c8c-473e-a84b-bac95aab7bc9 > >> Total devices 2 FS bytes used 1.59MiB > >> devid 2 size 967.87MiB used 104.75MiB path /dev/sdc > >> *** Some devices missing > >> > >> warning, device 1 is missing > >> warning, device 1 is missing > >> warning devid 1 not found already > >> ---------------- > >> > > > > Hi Anand and Petr, > > > > Oh, it seems that there are btrfs with missing devs that are bringing > > troubles to the @open_ctree_... function. > > This should be a missing case of the patch above which should only take > > effects when seeding devices are present. > > I will try my best to follow this case, suggestions are welcome, Thanks! > > > > -Gui > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On 10/23/14 14:57, Petr Janecek wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>>> You have mentioned two issues when balance and fi show running > >>>> concurrently > >>> > >>> my mail was a bit chaotic, but I get the stalls even on idle system. > >>> Today I got > >>> > >>> parent transid verify failed on 1559973888000 wanted 1819 found 1821 > >>> parent transid verify failed on 1559973888000 wanted 1819 found 1821 > >>> parent transid verify failed on 1559973888000 wanted 1819 found 1821 > >>> parent transid verify failed on 1559973888000 wanted 1819 found 1821 > >>> Ignoring transid failure > >>> leaf parent key incorrect 1559973888000 > >>> > >>> from 'btrfs fi sh' while I was just copying something, no balance running. > >>> > >>> [...] > >>>> [PATCH 1/1] btrfs-progs: code optimize cmd_scan_dev() use > >>>> btrfs_register_one_device() > >>>> [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: introduce btrfs_register_all_device() > >>>> [PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: optimize btrfs_scan_lblkid() for multiple calls > >>>> > >>>> If you could, pls.. > >>>> Now on 3.17 apply above 3 patches and see if you see any better > >>>> performance for the stalling issue. > >>> > >>> no perceptible change: takes ~40 seconds both before and after > >>> applying. Old version <1 sec. > >>> > >>>> can you do same steps on 3.16 and report what you observe > >>> > >>> So many rejects -- do you have older versions of these patches? > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Petr > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- 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
