Hi btrfs folks,
I am working on btrfs filesystem on how it manages the free
space. And found out btrfs maintain a ctree which manages the physical location
of the chunks and stripes of the filesystem.
Btrfs-debug-tree also gives the information on the chunk tree
I created btrfs
On tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:16:33 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Because btrfs can remove the device that was mounted we need to have a
-show_devname so that in this case we can print out some other device in
the file system to /proc/mount. We keep track of what device we called
mount() with so that we
This function was only used by btrfs code in btrfs_abort_devices()
(seems in a wrong way).
It was removed in commit d07eb9117050c9ed3f78296ebcc06128b52693be,
So, Let's remove the dead code to avoid any confusion.
Changes in v2: update commit log, btrfs_abort_devices() was removed
already.
Cc:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:33:09PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
On tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:16:33 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Because btrfs can remove the device that was mounted we need to have a
-show_devname so that in this case we can print out some other device in
the file system to /proc/mount. We
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:10:34PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
-if (state-print_mask BTRFSIC_PRINT_MASK_SUPERBLOCK_WRITE)
+if (state-print_mask BTRFSIC_PRINT_MASK_SUPERBLOCK_WRITE) {
+struct rcu_string *name;
+
+rcu_read_lock();
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:10:34PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
-if (state-print_mask BTRFSIC_PRINT_MASK_SUPERBLOCK_WRITE)
+if (state-print_mask BTRFSIC_PRINT_MASK_SUPERBLOCK_WRITE) {
+struct rcu_string *name;
+
+rcu_read_lock();
We convert btrfs_file_aio_write() to use new freeze check. We also add proper
freeze protection to btrfs_page_mkwrite(). We also add freeze protection to
the transaction mechanism to avoid starting transactions on frozen filesystem.
At minimum this is necessary to stop iput() of unlinked file to
When mnt_want_write() starts to handle freezing it will get a full lock
semantics requiring proper lock ordering. So push mnt_want_write() call
consistently outside of i_mutex.
CC: Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com
CC: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara j...@suse.cz
---
On Monday 11 of June 2012 23:53:34 Alex wrote:
Matthew Hawn steamraven at yahoo.com writes:
What are the recommendations for running KVM images on BTRFS systems using
Install:
virt-install --connect qemu:///system -n china -r 256 --disk
path=/var/lib/libvirt/images/china.img,size=4 -c
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 01:53:23 AM Duncan wrote:
We get a lot of folks on this list who somehow miss the kernel warning,
and the wiki warning, and the general community knowledge, that btrfs is
still marked experimental and is still under heavy development. If
something goes wrong, as
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 06:53:00 AM Santosh Hosamani wrote:
Kernel 3.0.13.0.27-default
This kernel is very old for btrfs. Can you try with at least Linux 3.4?
--
R
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
The Ubuntu wiki does not(in a straight-forward way) say BTRFS is
experimental and unstable. It looks like they copied and pasted from
the BTRFS official Wiki.
Link: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/btrfs
I do not have an account on the BTRFS wiki, but I believe changing the
first paragraphs to
Santosh Hosamani posted on Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:53:00 + as excerpted:
I am working on btrfs filesystem on how it manages the free space. [...]
I hav run these tests on SLES11-sp2-x86 Kernel 3.0.13.0.27-default
Quick mostly boilerplate intro reply. I'm just a list regular following
Roman Mamedov rm at romanrm.ru writes:
(Machine has no other load at all)
No material difference between cache types (none, writeback and writethrough)
when I tried.
I had been using partition based KVM which is obviously going to
be much faster.
Seems a little unfair on btrfs to just to look
Hubert Kario hka at qbs.com.pl writes:
From what I heard, this is caused by slow KVM CD virtualisation.
Try to install it and do some tests then.
You read my mind :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to
On 06/12/2012 08:53 AM, Santosh Hosamani wrote:
Hi btrfs folks,
I am working on btrfs filesystem on how it manages the free
space. And found out btrfs maintain a ctree which manages the physical
location of the chunks and stripes of the filesystem.
Btrfs-debug-tree also
#define device_name_printk(dev, level, fmt, ...) do { \
struct rcu_string *name;\
\
rcu_read_lock();\
name =
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 01:38 +0600, Roman Mamedov wrote:
Hello,
Before the upgrade (on 3.2.18):
Metadata, DUP: total=9.38GB, used=5.94GB
After the FS has been mounted once with 3.4.1:
Data: total=3.44TB, used=2.67TB
System, DUP: total=8.00MB, used=412.00KB
System: total=4.00MB,
On 06/10/2012 08:47 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
Hi all,
which is the supposed corrected way to set the file flag FS_NOCOW_FL ? I
know that exists the associated ioctl FS_IOC_SETFLAGS; which I didn't
found is an user-space tool to use to set the flags.
I am missing something ?
After a
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:33:06AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
#define device_name_printk(dev, level, fmt, ...) do {\
struct rcu_string *name;\
\
rcu_read_lock();
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:41:25PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
After a bit of googling I found a Liu Bo patches which add the ability
to set the NOCOW flags to a btrfs file.[1]
However it seems that it was not present in the current (v1.42.3)
e2fsprogs suite.
There is any reason
It appears the NOCOW_FL flag is currently a no-op in the 3.2 kernel?
tytso.r...@tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com {/mnt}
2062# grep /mnt /proc/mounts
/dev/mapper/funarg-btrfs /mnt btrfs rw,relatime,space_cache 0 0
tytso.r...@tytso-glaptop.cam.corp.google.com {/mnt}
2063# sync ; filefrag -v a
Because btrfs can remove the device that was mounted we need to have a
-show_devname so that in this case we can print out some other device in
the file system to /proc/mount. So if there are multiple devices in a btrfs
file system we will just print the device with the lowest devid that we can
Al pointed out that we can just toss out the old name on a device and add a
new one arbitrarily, so anybody who uses device-name in printk could
possibly use free'd memory. Instead of adding locking around all of this he
suggested doing it with RCU, so I've introduced a struct rcu_string that
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:53:00AM +, Santosh Hosamani wrote:
Hi btrfs folks,
I am working on btrfs filesystem on how it manages the free
space. And found out btrfs maintain a ctree which manages the physical
location of the chunks and stripes of the filesystem.
Seems a little unfair on btrfs to just to look at absolutes in this context.
Prior reports said that the fs ground to a halt,
it isn't doing that by any stretch.
I agree. What I am mostly looking for is the best setup
for using KVM snapshots:
KVM qcow2 on top of something like ext4 or
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:15:27PM -0600, Ted Ts'o wrote:
It appears the NOCOW_FL flag is currently a no-op in the 3.2 kernel?
It's not a noop, but it is only setting the NODATACOW flag. It needs to
set the nodatasum flag as well, just like the mount -o nodatacow mount
option does.
I'll fix
On 06/12/2012 10:44 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:15:27PM -0600, Ted Ts'o wrote:
It appears the NOCOW_FL flag is currently a no-op in the 3.2 kernel?
It's not a noop, but it is only setting the NODATACOW flag. It needs to
set the nodatasum flag as well, just like the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 04:44:23PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:15:27PM -0600, Ted Ts'o wrote:
It appears the NOCOW_FL flag is currently a no-op in the 3.2 kernel?
It's not a noop, but it is only setting the NODATACOW flag. It needs to
set the nodatasum flag as
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 04:44:23PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:15:27PM -0600, Ted Ts'o wrote:
It appears the NOCOW_FL flag is currently a no-op in the 3.2 kernel?
It's not a noop, but it is only setting the NODATACOW flag. It needs to
set the nodatasum flag as
... and e2fsprogs 1.42.4 has been released, with the No_COW lsattr and
chattr support. It's in all of the usual places:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/tytso/e2fsprogs/v1.42.4
and
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs-1.42.4.tar.gz
... and I've uploaded a release
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:50:41PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
@@ -93,6 +93,7 @@
#include print-tree.h
#include locking.h
#include check-integrity.h
+#include rcu-string.h
#define BTRFSIC_BLOCK_HASHTABLE_SIZE 0x1
#define
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Randy Barlow
ra...@electronsweatshop.com wrote:
I personally run Gentoo, but I've been told by some coworkers that the Ubuntu
installer offers btrfs as an option to the users without marking it as
experimental, unstable, or under development. I wonder if that is
Hi, Greg,
There's a btrfs regression in 3.4 that's causing a lot of grief to
ceph-on-btrfs users like myself. This small and nice patch cures it.
It's in Linus' master already. I've been running it on top of 3.4.2,
and it would be very convenient for me if this could be in 3.4.3.
Although the
-Original Message-
From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:20 PM
To: Santosh Hosamani
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug in btrfs-debug-tree for two or more devices.
On 06/12/2012 08:53 AM, Santosh Hosamani wrote:
Hi btrfs folks,
On 13/06/12 13:46, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I know btrfs hasn't had maintenance fixes in stable series, but Chris
Mason tells me the only reason is that nobody stepped up to do so.
Given my interest, I might as well give it a try ;-)
Actually 3.3.3 had a fix for btrfs in it.. :-)
36 matches
Mail list logo
