Hi,
While running my tool(attachment), I would encounter the BUG_ON, and I FAILED
to find where went wrong :(
The tool is with inode_cache option, and mainly do three things:
a. run Chris's synctest in BACKGROUND
b. create 100 snapshots
c. after b, run btrfs fi balance
You can follow these
Hi,
While running my tool(attachment), I would encounter the BUG_ON, and I FAILED
to find where went wrong :(
The tool is with inode_cache option, and mainly do three things:
a. run Chris's synctest in BACKGROUND
b. create 100 snapshots
c. after b, run btrfs fi balance
You can follow these
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Liu Bo liubo2...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Hi,
While running my tool(attachment), I would encounter the BUG_ON, and I FAILED
to find where went wrong :(
The tool is with inode_cache option, and mainly do three things:
a. run Chris's synctest in BACKGROUND
b.
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 21:45 +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
This patch allows allocators to pass __GFP_WRITE when they know in
advance that the allocated page will be written to and become dirty
soon. The page allocator will then attempt to distribute those
allocations across zones, such that
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:04:28PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 21:45 +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote:
This patch allows allocators to pass __GFP_WRITE when they know in
advance that the allocated page will be written to and become dirty
soon. The page allocator will then
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:45:12PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
The amount of dirtyable pages should not include the total number of
free pages: there is a number of reserved pages that the page
allocator and kswapd always try to keep free.
The closer (reclaimable pages - dirty pages) is to
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:40:34PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 02:38:03PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 09/20/2011 10:25 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
In addition to regular write shouldn't __do_fault and do_wp_page also
calls this if they are called on file
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:45:13PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
This patch allows allocators to pass __GFP_WRITE when they know in
advance that the allocated page will be written to and become dirty
soon. The page allocator will then attempt to distribute those
allocations across zones, such
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:45:14PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
Tell the page allocator that pages allocated through
grab_cache_page_write_begin() are expected to become dirty soon.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner jwei...@redhat.com
Acked-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:04:23PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:45:12PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
The amount of dirtyable pages should not include the total number of
free pages: there is a number of reserved pages that the page
allocator and kswapd always try to
Hello all,
I've been using BTRFS for quite some time on this laptop and I just
recompiled the latest kernel from git (3.1.0-rc6-00247-g38867a2). After
a couple minutes, I hit this bug twice (this a hand written transcript,
pics here [1]) kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:785!
stack being:
Johannes pointed out we were allocating only kernel pages for doing writes,
which is kind of a big deal if you are on 32bit and have more than a gig of ram.
So fix our allocations to use the mapping's gfp but still clear __GFP_FS so we
don't re-enter. Thanks,
Reported-by: Johannes Weiner
On 09/21/2011 02:53 PM, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote:
Hello all,
I've been using BTRFS for quite some time on this laptop and I just
recompiled the latest kernel from git (3.1.0-rc6-00247-g38867a2). After
a couple minutes, I hit this bug twice (this a hand written transcript,
pics
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:18:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Yup, can you apply this patch and reproduce? It will print out some
debug info before the --- cut here --- line, which is what I need. Thanks,
Compiling right now. That said, I had the same exact trace under
rc6-00067-gf1fcd9f
Hello all,
I'm trying to look into working on some few features for a filesystem,
and figured that if they were to be adopted, better work on the current
project. I'm looking for the standard documentaion, and a copy of the
source. I have no idea where to look for these since everything
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:57:56PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
In fixing how we deal with bad inodes, we had a regression in the orphan
cleanup
code, since it expects to get a bad inode back. So fix it to deal with
getting
-ESTALE back by deleting the orphan item manually and moving on.
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:45:13 +0200
Johannes Weiner jwei...@redhat.com wrote:
This patch allows allocators to pass __GFP_WRITE when they know in
advance that the allocated page will be written to and become dirty
soon. The page allocator will then attempt to distribute those
allocations
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:18:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index b128fa0..66ba0a7 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -782,7 +782,12 @@ static noinline int cow_file_range(struct inode *inode,
struct extent_map_tree
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 16:37 -0400, Anadon wrote:
Hello all,
I'm trying to look into working on some few features for a filesystem,
and figured that if they were to be adopted, better work on the current
project. I'm looking for the standard documentaion, and a copy of the
source. I have
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:37:02PM -0400, Anadon wrote:
I'm trying to look into working on some few features for a filesystem,
and figured that if they were to be adopted, better work on the current
project. I'm looking for the standard documentaion, and a copy of the
source. I have
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:57:56PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
modification to fs trees is not allowed after create_pending_snapshots()
Do you have an idea whether there is a reasonable way to catch this in
code? (even if only under a config option).
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:42 AM, David Sterba d...@jikos.cz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:57:56PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
modification to fs trees is not allowed after create_pending_snapshots()
Do you have an idea whether there is a reasonable way to catch this in
code? (even if only
22 matches
Mail list logo
