[RFC PATCH] Btrfs: batch merge state at endio time

2012-02-15 Thread Liu Bo
This RFC patch is intended to make our extent state code more rcu friendly. o Since IO related extents in the tree will not be merged or changed, we can safely clear the extents's lock flags at endio time. o After clearing flags, we will merge the adjacent extents when their states are equal,

Re: can't read superblock (but could mount)

2012-02-15 Thread Chris Mason
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:03:49AM +0100, Timo Nentwig wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Chris Mason wrote: > > >Ok, 3.2 shouldn't have done this. Was this an external drive? What > >else do you have on the system? > > Nothing special actually. Standard arch linux with virtualbox kernel modul

Re: brtfs on top of dmcrypt with SSD. No corruption iff write cache off?

2012-02-15 Thread Calvin Walton
On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 16:14 -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > Considering that I have a fairly new crucial 256GB SDD, I'm going to assume > that this bit applies to me: > "On the other side, TRIM is usually overrated. Drive itself should keep good > performance even without TRIM, either by using internal

Re: [PATCH V2] Btrfs-progs: add \"btrfs subvolume get-default\" subcommand

2012-02-15 Thread Ilya Dryomov
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:43:02PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > > Hi Xin / Hugo, > I am referring to > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git > > has miss match parameter list for list_subvols > -- > # cd btrfs-progs > # egrep list_subvols * > btrfs_cmds.

Re: brtfs on top of dmcrypt with SSD. No corruption iff write cache off?

2012-02-15 Thread Marc MERLIN
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:42:43AM -0500, Calvin Walton wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-12 at 16:14 -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > > Considering that I have a fairly new crucial 256GB SDD, I'm going to assume > > that this bit applies to me: > > "On the other side, TRIM is usually overrated. Drive itself sho

Re: brtfs on top of dmcrypt with SSD. No corruption iff write cache off?

2012-02-15 Thread Hugo Mills
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 08:55:40AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/articles/g/o/t/Gotchas.html > still states 'btrfs volumes on top of dm-crypt block devices (and possibly > LVM) require write-caching to be turned off on the underlying HDD. Failing > to do so, in the event

Re: [RFB] add LZ4 compression method to btrfs

2012-02-15 Thread Kok, Auke-jan H
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Hugo Chevrain wrote: >> >> Are you sure about these figures ? the difference seems too large. It's > almost >> unbelievable. >> >> -- > > You should not, > Mark Ruijter found the same for LessFS (http://www.lessfs.com/wordpress/? > p=688) and there is also such fin

Re: [RFB] add LZ4 compression method to btrfs

2012-02-15 Thread Fahrzin Hemmati
The second link is broken, just remove scribe. from it. https://twitter.com/#!/otisg/status/148848850914902016 It causes a cross-domain error, not sure why he could see it though. On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:23:37 AM, Kok, Auke-jan H wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Hugo Chevrain

Problems Implementing Snappy Patches

2012-02-15 Thread Mitch Harder
I've been trying to test the snappy compression patches, but I'm getting corruptions when trying to use snappy as built on my system. I'm checking out the Linux 3.2.6 kernel, merging that with the latest 'for-linus' branch on Chris Mason's kernel.org repo, and then integrating the snappy and lz4 p

Re: Problems Implementing Snappy Patches

2012-02-15 Thread Duncan
Mitch Harder posted on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:46:00 -0600 as excerpted: > I've been trying to test the snappy compression patches, but I'm getting > corruptions when trying to use snappy as built on my system. > > I'm checking out the Linux 3.2.6 kernel, merging that with the latest > 'for-linus' br

Re: Problems Implementing Snappy Patches

2012-02-15 Thread Mitch Harder
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Mitch Harder posted on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:46:00 -0600 as excerpted: > >> I've been trying to test the snappy compression patches, but I'm getting >> corruptions when trying to use snappy as built on my system. >> >> I'm checki

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix return value check of extent_io_ops

2012-02-15 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
This patch adds the check on the return value of extent_io_ops. Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh --- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 16 ++-- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index fcf77e1..a84621f 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/e

Re: Problems Implementing Snappy Patches

2012-02-15 Thread Li Zefan
Mitch Harder wrote: > I've been trying to test the snappy compression patches, but I'm > getting corruptions when trying to use snappy as built on my system. > > I'm checking out the Linux 3.2.6 kernel, merging that with the latest > 'for-linus' branch on Chris Mason's kernel.org repo, and then >

Re: brtfs on top of dmcrypt with SSD. No corruption iff write cache off?

2012-02-15 Thread Chris Samuel
On Monday 13 February 2012 11:14:00 Marc MERLIN wrote: > I knew that it created some security problems but I had not yet > found the page you just gave, which effectively states that TRIM > isn't actually that big a win on recent SSDs (I thought it was > actually pretty important to use it on them

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix deadlock on page lock when doing auto-defragment

2012-02-15 Thread Miao Xie
When I ran xfstests circularly on a auto-defragment btrfs, the deadlock happened. Steps to reproduce: [tty0] # export MOUNT_OPTIONS="-o autodefrag" # export TEST_DEV= # export TEST_DIR= # export SCRATCH_DEV= # export SCRATCH_MNT= # while [ 1 ] > do > ./check 091 127 263 > sleep 1 > done

[PATCH] Btrfs: check return value of lookup_extent_mapping() correctly

2012-02-15 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
This patch corrects error checking of lookup_extent_mapping(). Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh --- fs/btrfs/compression.c |2 ++ fs/btrfs/extent_io.c |2 +- fs/btrfs/volumes.c |2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/compression.c b/fs/btrfs/co