What's the kernel and btrfs progs version?
I wish the dmesg errors were more explicit about the nature of checksum errors:
do the two metadata checksums mismatch each other (one of them matches with
data), or the metadata checksums match each other but mismatch with data?
Hopefully I'm mistaken
Hi Anatol,
That certainly does not look good, definitely more than just a bad
space cache. A this point I would strongly suggest that before you try
anything else on the file system that you make sure you have a backup
of everything up there. After you have backed up everything a scrub
may be able
Hi
I ran btrfsck hoping that it fix the filesystem so 'balance' would not
crash anymore. But btrfsck itself crashed :(
# btrfsck --repair /dev/sda3
:(
enabling repair mode
Checking filesystem on /dev/sda3
UUID: 25e6a6fa-fe1f-4be5-a638-eeac948f8c21
checking extents
checking fs roots
ro
Hi, Frank
Thanks for your answer.
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Frank Holton wrote:
> Hey Anatol,
>
> I just checked and on my filesystem inode number 362 corresponds to
> part of the free space cache. You can check this yourself by running
> (as root)
>
> btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sdb | grep "(36
On Nov 7, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Michael Göhler wrote:
> The boot subvolume is then set with 'btrfs subvolume set-default' and
> mounted without subvol/subvolid option by Arch's default mount handler.
I'm unconvinced it's a good idea for it to be used behind the scenes for the
described purpose. C
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:09:56 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:08:26PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:52PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Use kernel workqueue to implement a new btrfs_workqueue_struct, which
has the ordering execution feature like the btrfs_w
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:54:56 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Quoting Qu Wenruo (2013-11-07 00:51:50)
Add a new btrfs_workqueue_struct which use kernel workqueue to implement
most of the original btrfs_workers, to replace btrfs_workers.
With this patchset, redundant workqueue codes are replaced with ke
On thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:52:14 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:50PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Qu Wenruo (17):
btrfs: Cleanup the unused struct async_sched.
btrfs: Added btrfs_workqueue_struct implemented ordered execution
based on kernel workqueue
btrfs: Add hig
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:41:34 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
@@ -753,6 +754,19 @@ struct btrfs_workqueue_struct *btrfs_alloc_workqueue(char
*name,
}
}
+ if (high_name) {
+ ret->high_wq = alloc_workque
Himangi Saraogi writes:
> This patch replaces kmalloc(size * nr, ) with kmalloc_array(nr, size)
> as kmalloc_array() is preferred because it can check that the
> calculation doesn't wrap and won't return a smaller allocation.
> Also kzalloc(size * nr) was replaced with kzalloc_array().
>
> Signed-
On thu, 7 Nov 2013 17:05:29 +0100, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:33:32AM +0100, Stefan Behrens wrote:
+struct btrfs_work_struct {
+ void (*func)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
+ void (*ordered_func)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
+ void (*ordered_free)(struct
Hi,
I'm a contributor of the Arch Linux package mkinitcpio-btrfs [1]. The
goal of this hook is to provide Btrfs rollback support for root
filesystems directly from initrd.
Technically we are using a subvolume to store the root filesystem. The
user can snapshot it entirely and boot from this
On 2.11.2013 3.34, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> On this box can you run
>
> gdb btrfs.ko
> list *(__btrfs_drop_extents+0x59d)
>
> I want to know where exactly this is coming from so I can start trying to
> figure
> out how it's happening. Thanks,
Hi,
I've got the same issue. Btrfs FS crashes on my
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:26:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 04-11-13 15:36:19, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > With immutable biovecs we don't want code accessing bi_io_vec directly -
> > the uses this patch changes weren't incorrect since they all own the
> > bio, but it makes the code harder to
Hello again,
can someone please help me on this?
Regards,
Hendrik
Am 06.11.2013 07:45, schrieb Hendrik Friedel:
Hello,
sorry, I was totally unaware still being on 3.11rc2.
I re-ran btrfsck with the same result:
./btrfs-progs/btrfsck /dev/sdc1
Checking filesystem on /dev/sdc1
UUID: 989306aa-d
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:08:26PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:52PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Use kernel workqueue to implement a new btrfs_workqueue_struct, which
> > has the ordering execution feature like the btrfs_worker.
> >
> > The func is executed in a concur
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:52PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Use kernel workqueue to implement a new btrfs_workqueue_struct, which
> has the ordering execution feature like the btrfs_worker.
>
> The func is executed in a concurrency way, and the
> ordred_func/ordered_free is executed in the sequen
Quoting Qu Wenruo (2013-11-07 00:51:50)
> Add a new btrfs_workqueue_struct which use kernel workqueue to implement
> most of the original btrfs_workers, to replace btrfs_workers.
>
> With this patchset, redundant workqueue codes are replaced with kernel
> workqueue infrastructure, which not only r
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:50PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Qu Wenruo (17):
> btrfs: Cleanup the unused struct async_sched.
> btrfs: Added btrfs_workqueue_struct implemented ordered execution
> based on kernel workqueue
> btrfs: Add high priority workqueue support for btrfs_workqueue_str
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:51PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The struct async_sched is not used by any codes and can be removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a messa
Hey Anatol,
I just checked and on my filesystem inode number 362 corresponds to
part of the free space cache. You can check this yourself by running
(as root)
btrfs-debug-tree /dev/sdb | grep "(362 " -A 3 -B 1
where /dev/sdb is one of the devices from your filesystem.
It printed the following f
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:51:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> @@ -753,6 +754,19 @@ struct btrfs_workqueue_struct
> *btrfs_alloc_workqueue(char *name,
> }
> }
>
> + if (high_name) {
> + ret->high_wq = alloc_workqueue(high_name,
> +
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:33:32AM +0100, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> > +struct btrfs_work_struct {
> > + void (*func)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
> > + void (*ordered_func)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
> > + void (*ordered_free)(struct btrfs_work_struct *arg);
> > +
> > + /* Don't touch
Dear user,
Your mailbox has Exceeded the quota limit set by the administrator, you will
not be able to send or receive mail
until you revalidates your account.
Please click the link below or copy paste to your browser to validate your
mailbox.
http://tinylink.net/quotalimit
Failure to do th
Hi
I use Linux Arch, kernel 3.11.6.
Recently I had a disk crash and number of my files got corrupted. To
avoid this situation again I added more disks I trying to convert the
data to raid1:
# btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /
But unfortunately it fails with IO erro. In dmesg
Bartosz Kulicki posted on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 11:43:15 + as excerpted:
> FWIW - just before nuking the fs I have added a 3GB loopback device to
> btrfs.
>
> This restored ability to delete the files but I could not remove the
> loopback after deleting some large files (if I remember correctly er
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:24:25PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:42:35AM +0100, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> > Sharing the ioctl value seems to have happened by mistake and is
> > uncommon, but IMHO now it's too late to change this interface just for
> > esthetical reasons.
>
FWIW - just before nuking the fs I have added a 3GB loopback device to btrfs.
This restored ability to delete the files but I could not remove the
loopback after deleting some large files (if I remember correctly
error I got was "block device required")
cheers,
Bart
--
To unsubscribe from this li
Hi Stefan,
Yes, I realise that.
As I pointed out in bug report I have tried workarounds suggested in
wiki and more. To be precise: partial balancing didn't work (completed
without error but no change), balacing fs failed with ENOSPC,
clobbering a file didn't work (ENOSPC), btrfs-zero-log completed
On Mon 04-11-13 15:36:19, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> With immutable biovecs we don't want code accessing bi_io_vec directly -
> the uses this patch changes weren't incorrect since they all own the
> bio, but it makes the code harder to audit for no good reason - also,
> this will help with multipage
In btrfs_wait_ordered_range(), if we found an extent to the left
of the start of our desired wait range and the last byte of that
extent is 1 less than the desired range's start, we would would
wait for the IO completion of that extent and all other extents
to the left of that extent, unnecessarily
On 11/07/2013 06:04 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:01:41 +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
+ *out_fslist = malloc(sz);
+ if (*out_fslist == NULL) {
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ memcpy(*out_fslist, fslist, sz);
+ ret = 0;
need fsinfo from btrfs-control that is when mount path is
not known.
current method of going through each mount points isn't
efficient, and multiple subvol of a fsid could be mounted
means extra logic to handle that. Further this will help
to revamp check_mounted() (planned)
check_mounted is heavi
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 18:01:41 +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> + *out_fslist = malloc(sz);
> + if (*out_fslist == NULL) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + memcpy(*out_fslist, fslist, sz);
> + ret = 0;
> +out:
> + free(fsargs_saved);
> + close(f
need fsinfo from btrfs-control that is when mount path is
not known.
current method of going through each mount points isn't
efficient, and multiple subvol of a fsid could be mounted
means extra logic to handle that. Further this will help
to revamp check_mounted() (planned)
check_mounted is heavi
A new test case when disk is unmounted and if the non mapper
disk path is given as the argument to the btrfs filesystem show
we still need this to work but lblkid will pull only mapper disks,
it won't match. So this will normalize the input to find btrfs
by fsid and pass it to the search.
v3: acc
Done.
On 11/07/13 04:20 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:45:45AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
A new test case when disk is unmounted and if the non mapper
disk path is given as the argument to the btrfs filesystem show
we still need this to work but lblkid will pull only mapper d
Thanks sent out v3
On 11/07/13 04:19 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:45:44AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
as of now with out this patch user would see
fsinfo per btrfs mount path but which mean multiple
entry if more than one subvol is mounted of the same
fsid. so this patch wi
need fsinfo from btrfs-control that is when mount path is
not known.
current method of going through each mount points isn't
efficient, and multiple subvol of a fsid could be mounted
means extra logic to handle that. Further this will help
to revamp check_mounted() (planned)
check_mounted is heavi
as of now with out this patch user would see
fsinfo per btrfs mount path but which mean multiple
entry if more than one subvol is mounted of the same
fsid. so this patch will handle that nicely.
v3: accepts Josef suggested and fix git screwup
v2: accepts Zach suggested
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain
Thanks sent out v3.
On 11/07/13 04:13 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:45:43AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
need fsinfo from btrfs-control that is when mount path is
not known.
current method of going through each mount points isn't
efficient, and multiple subvol of a fsid could b
A new test case when disk is unmounted and if the non mapper
disk path is given as the argument to the btrfs filesystem show
we still need this to work but lblkid will pull only mapper disks,
it won't match. So this will normalize the input to find btrfs
by fsid and pass it to the search.
v2: acc
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:51:52 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Use kernel workqueue to implement a new btrfs_workqueue_struct, which
> has the ordering execution feature like the btrfs_worker.
>
> The func is executed in a concurrency way, and the
> ordred_func/ordered_free is executed in the sequence them
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:53:25 +, Bartosz Kulicki wrote:
> As per subject. Seems UUID tree creation failed after upgrade. I could
> not mount filesystem under 3.12. Going back to 3.8.10 allowed me to
> mount fs but I could no longer perform any deletes, writes etc.
>
> I've opened a bug report he
reviewed-by: Anand Jain
On 11/07/2013 07:15 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Even if it's "definitely" btrfs at this point,
btrfs_scan_one_device could fail for other reasons.
Check the return value, warn if it fails, and skip
the device register.
Resolves-Coverity-CID: 1125925
Signed-off-by: Eric
45 matches
Mail list logo
