On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:46:06AM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > Am 02.11.2015 um 02:34 schrieb Qu Wenruo: > > > > > >Stefan Priebe wrote on 2015/11/01 21:49 +0100: > >>Hi, > >> > >>this one: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg47377.html > >> > >>adds a regression to my test systems with very large disks (30tb and > >>50tb). > >> > >>btrfs balance is super slow afterwards while heavily making use of cp > >>--reflink=always on big files (200gb - 500gb). > >> > >>Sorry didn't know how to correctly reply to that "old" message. > >> > >>Greets, > >>Stefan > >>-- > >>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 > > > >Thanks for the testing. > > > >Are you using qgroup or just doing normal balance with qgroup disabled? > > just doing normal balance with qgroup disabled.
Then that patch is very unlikely to be your actual problem as it won't be doing anything (ok some kmalloc/free of a very tiny object) since qgroups are disabled. Also, btrfs had working subtree accounting in that code for the last N releases (doing the same exact thing) and it only changed for the one release that Qu's rework was in (which lazily tore it out). --Mark -- Mark Fasheh -- 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