Re: RAID1: system stability

2015-06-22 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Timofey Titovets nefelim...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, logs, i did release disk /dev/sde1 and get: Jun 22 14:28:40 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: Read(10): 28 00 11 1d 69 00 00 00 08 00 Jun 22 14:28:40 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: blk_update_request: I/O error, dev

Re: RAID1: system stability

2015-06-22 Thread Chris Murphy
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Timofey Titovets nefelim...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-06-22 19:03 GMT+03:00 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Timofey Titovets nefelim...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, logs, i did release disk /dev/sde1 and get: Jun 22 14:28:40

Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread Goffredo Baroncelli
On 2015-06-22 17:00, David Sterba wrote: Hi, Many thanks for your work. BTW just for curiosity: is it a coincidence that both Torvalds and you released the kernel 4.1/btrfs-progs 4.1 in the same day ? I know that the version are coupled, but also the same day BR G.Baronelli

Re: RAID1: system stability

2015-06-22 Thread Timofey Titovets
2015-06-22 19:03 GMT+03:00 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Timofey Titovets nefelim...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, logs, i did release disk /dev/sde1 and get: Jun 22 14:28:40 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: Read(10): 28 00 11 1d 69 00 00 00 08 00 Jun 22

Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread David Sterba
Hi, btrfs-progs 4.1 have been released (in time with kernel 4.1). Unusual load of changes. Fixed since rc1: - uuid rewrite prints the correct original UUID - map-logical updated - fi show size units - typos * bugfixes - fsck.btrfs: no bash-isms - bugzilla 97171: invalid memory

Re: i_version vs iversion (Was: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] Btrfs: add noi_version option to disable MS_I_VERSION)

2015-06-22 Thread Dave Chinner
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:38:56PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: Moving the discussion to fsdevel. Summary: disabling MS_I_VERSION brings some speedups to btrfs, but the generic 'noiversion' option cannot be used to achieve that. It is processed before it reaches btrfs superblock callback,

Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread Martin Steigerwald
Wow, nice collection of changes! Am Montag, 22. Juni 2015, 17:00:23 schrieb David Sterba: * new - rescure zero-log - btrfsune: - rewrite uuid on a filesystem image - new option to turn on NO_HOLES incompat feature Did you think about folding btrfstune into btrfs command as well?

qgroup limit clearing, was Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread Christian Robottom Reis
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:00:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: - qgroup: - show: distinguish no limits and 0 limit value - limit: ability to clear the limit I'm using kernel 4.1-rc7 as per: root@riff:/var/lib/lxc/juju-trusty-lxc-template/rootfs# uname -a Linux riff

qgroup limit clearing, was Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread Christian Robottom Reis
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:00:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: - qgroup: - show: distinguish no limits and 0 limit value - limit: ability to clear the limit I'm using kernel 4.1-rc7 as per: root@riff:/var/lib/lxc/juju-trusty-lxc-template/rootfs# uname -a Linux riff

Re: qgroup limit clearing, was Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
On 2015/06/23 3:18, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:00:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: - qgroup: - show: distinguish no limits and 0 limit value - limit: ability to clear the limit I'm using kernel 4.1-rc7 as per:

[PATCH 0/5] btrfs: dedupe fixes, features V2

2015-06-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
Hi Chris, The following patches are based on top of my patch titled btrfs: Handle unaligned length in extent_same which you have in your 'integration-4.2' branch: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git/commit/?id=e1d227a42ea2b4664f94212bd1106b9a3413ffb8 I sent

[PATCH 2/5] btrfs: fix deadlock with extent-same and readpage

2015-06-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
-readpage() does page_lock() before extent_lock(), we do the opposite in extent-same. We want to reverse the order in btrfs_extent_same() but it's not quite straightforward since the page locks are taken inside btrfs_cmp_data(). So I split btrfs_cmp_data() into 3 parts with a small context

[PATCH 3/5] btrfs: fix clone / extent-same deadlocks

2015-06-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
Clone and extent same lock their source and target inodes in opposite order. In addition to this, the range locking in clone doesn't take ordering into account. Fix this by having clone use the same locking helpers as btrfs-extent-same. In addition, I do a small cleanup of the locking helpers,

[PATCH 1/5] btrfs: pass unaligned length to btrfs_cmp_data()

2015-06-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
In the case that we dedupe the tail of a file, we might expand the dedupe len out to the end of our last block. We don't want to compare data past i_size however, so pass the original length to btrfs_cmp_data(). Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de Reviewed-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz

[PATCH 5/5] btrfs: add no_mtime flag to btrfs-extent-same

2015-06-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
One issue users have reported is that dedupe changes mtime on files, resulting in tools like rsync thinking that their contents have changed when in fact the data is exactly the same. Clone still wants an mtime change, so we special case this in the code. With this patch an application can pass

[PATCH 4/5] btrfs: allow dedupe of same inode

2015-06-22 Thread Mark Fasheh
clone() supports cloning within an inode so extent-same can do the same now. This patch fixes up the locking in extent-same to know about the single-inode case. In addition to that, we add a check for overlapping ranges, which clone does not allow. Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh mfas...@suse.de ---

Re: raid 1 to 10 conversion

2015-06-22 Thread Suman Chakravartula
I can confirm that convert works now with 4.1 kernel and btrfs-progs Suman On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Gareth Pye gar...@cerberos.id.au wrote: btrfs has a small bug at the moment where balance can't convert raid levels (it just does nothing), it is meant to be fixed with the next kernel

Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] Revert Btrfs: incremental send, remove dead code

2015-06-22 Thread Filipe David Manana
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robbie Ko robbi...@synology.com wrote: This reverts commit 5f806c3ae2ff6263a10a6901f97abb74dac03d36. So, this is a revert patch that alone by itself doesn't fix any problem. Fine. However you are now pasting below the commit message from another patch in the

Re: RAID1: system stability

2015-06-22 Thread Timofey Titovets
And again if i've try echo 1 /sys/block/sdf/device/delete Jun 22 14:44:16 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: [ cut here ] Jun 22 14:44:16 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: kernel BUG at /build/buildd/linux-3.19.0/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2056! Jun 22 14:44:16 srv-lab-ceph-node-01

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] Btrfs: incremental send, avoid circular waiting and descendant overwrite ancestor need to update path

2015-06-22 Thread Filipe David Manana
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robbie Ko robbi...@synology.com wrote: Base on [PATCH] Btrfs: incremental send, check if orphanized dir inode needs delayed rename This is mentioned on the cover letter, so no need to repeat this on the commit message of every patch in the series. Example1:

Re: RAID1: system stability

2015-06-22 Thread Timofey Titovets
Okay, logs, i did release disk /dev/sde1 and get: Jun 22 14:28:40 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: Read(10): 28 00 11 1d 69 00 00 00 08 00 Jun 22 14:28:40 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: blk_update_request: I/O error, dev sde, sector 287140096 Jun 22 14:28:40 srv-lab-ceph-node-01 kernel: mptbase: ioc0:

Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] Btrfs: incremental send, avoid ancestor rename to descendant

2015-06-22 Thread Filipe David Manana
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robbie Ko robbi...@synology.com wrote: There's one more case where we can't issue a rename operation for a directory as soon as we process it. We move a directory from ancestor to descendant. | a | b | c | d Move a

[PATCH v2 1/7] Revert Btrfs: incremental send, remove dead code

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
This reverts commit 5f806c3ae2ff6263a10a6901f97abb74dac03d36. Btrfs: incremental send, avoid ancestor rename to descendant There's one more case where we can't issue a rename operation for a directory as soon as we process it. We move a directory from ancestor to descendant. | a | b

[PATCH v2 7/7] Btrfs: incremental send, avoid the overhead of allocating an orphan_dir_info object unnecessarily

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
Avoid the overhead of allocating an orphan_dir_info object unnecessarily. Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko robbi...@synology.com --- fs/btrfs/send.c | 13 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c index 579a4c8..9c60421 100644 ---

[PATCH v2 6/7] Btrfs: incremental send, don't send utimes for non-existing directory

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
There's one case where we can't issue a utimes operation for a directory. First, 261 can't move to d/item1 without the rename of inode 265. So as 262. Thus 261 and 262 need to wait for rename. Second, since 263 will be deleted and there are two waiting sub-directory 261 and 262, rmdir_ino of 261

[PATCH v2 4/7] Btrfs: incremental send, fix orphan_dir_info leak

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
There's one case where we leak a orphan_dir_info structure. Example: Parent snapshot: | a/ (ino 279) | c (ino 282) | del/ (ino 281) | tmp/ (ino 280) | long/ (ino 283) | longlong/ (ino 284) Send snapshot: | a/ (ino 279) | long (ino 283)

[PATCH] Btrfs: Check if kobject is initialized before put

2015-06-22 Thread Anand Jain
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com --- fs/btrfs/sysfs.c | 8 +--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c index ea81a05..603b0cc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/sysfs.c @@ -523,9 +523,11 @@ static void

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] Btrfs: incremental send, don't send utimes for non-existing directory

2015-06-22 Thread Filipe David Manana
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Robbie Ko robbi...@synology.com wrote: There's one case where we can't issue a utimes operation for a directory. There's one where we attempt to get utimes from a directory that doesn't exist in the send snapshot. First, 261 can't move to d/item1 without the

[PATCH v2 2/7] Btrfs: incremental send, avoid circular waiting and descendant overwrite ancestor need to update path

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
Base on [PATCH] Btrfs: incremental send, check if orphanized dir inode needs delayed rename Example1: There's one case where we can't issue a rename operation for a directory as soon as we process it. Used to delay directory renames if wait_parent_move or wait_for_dest_dir_move, maybe cause

[PATCH v2 5/7] Btrfs: incremental send, fix rmdir but dir have a unprocess item

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
There's one case where we attempt to rmdir a directory prematurely. Example: Parent snapshot: | a/ (ino 279) | c (ino 282) | del/ (ino 281) | tmp/ (ino 280) | long/ (ino 283) Send snapshot: | a/ (ino 279) | long (ino 283) | c/ (ino 282) |

[PATCH v2 3/7] Btrfs: incremental send, avoid ancestor rename to descendant

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
There's one more case where we can't issue a rename operation for a directory as soon as we process it. We move a directory from ancestor to descendant. | a | b | c | d Move a directory from ancestor to descendant means moving dir. a into dir. c This case

[PATCH v2 0/7] Btrfs incremental send fix serval case for rename and rm directory

2015-06-22 Thread Robbie Ko
Patch for fix btrfs send receive. These patches base on v4.1 plus following patches. [PATCH] Btrfs: incremental send, don't delay directory renames unnecessarily [PATCH] Btrfs: incremental send, check if orphanized dir inode needs delayed rename Thanks. Robbie Ko (7): Revert Btrfs:

Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 06:18:35PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: Many thanks for your work. BTW just for curiosity: is it a coincidence that both Torvalds and you released the kernel 4.1/btrfs-progs 4.1 in the same day ? I know that the version are coupled, but also the same day This

Re: qgroup limit clearing, was Re: Btrfs progs release 4.1

2015-06-22 Thread Qu Wenruo
Tsutomu Itoh wrote on 2015/06/23 08:55 +0900: On 2015/06/23 3:18, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 05:00:23PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: - qgroup: - show: distinguish no limits and 0 limit value - limit: ability to clear the limit I'm using kernel 4.1-rc7

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Btrfs: RAID 5/6 missing device scrub+replace

2015-06-22 Thread wangyf
Hi, I have tested your PATCH v2 , but something wrong happened. kernel: 4.1.0-rc7+ with your five patches vitrualBox ubuntu14.10-server + LVM I make a new btrfs.ko with your patches, rmmod original module and insmod the new. When I use the profile RAID1/10, mkfs successfully But when mount the

Re: NULL pointer dereference during snapshot removal

2015-06-22 Thread Liu Bo
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: Hi there, I'm having trouble with btrfs where removing a snapshot causes a kernel Oops at blk_get_backing_dev_info+0x10/0x1c (plus or minus a byte bytes). Is this a known issue? Else I'll dig further. Stack traces below. Can

BTRFS balance fails with -dusage=100

2015-06-22 Thread Moby
OpenSuSE 13.2 system with single BTRFS / mounted on top of /dev/md1. /dev/md1 is md raid5 across 4 SATA disks. System details are: Linux suse132 4.0.5-4.g56152db-default #1 SMP Thu Jun 18 15:11:06 UTC 2015 (56152db) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux btrfs-progs v4.1+20150622 Label: none

Re: Corrupted btrfs partition (converted from ext4) after balance

2015-06-22 Thread Qu Wenruo
Vianney Stroebel wrote on 2015/06/19 01:55 +0200: One of my btrfs partition seems to have been corrupted. Since I've tried to balance it, I can only mount it read-only. I have been able to use it read-only without problem so far so the data seems safe. When I remove the ro option, the mount

[PATCH 1/1] Btrfs: Remove redundant NULL check before kfree

2015-06-22 Thread Maninder Singh
There is no need of NULL check before kfree, removing the same Signed-off-by: Maninder Singh maninder...@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Akhilesh Kumar akhiles...@samsung.com --- fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c |6 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: Corrupted btrfs partition (converted from ext4) after balance

2015-06-22 Thread Vianney Stroebel
So, in the btrfs mailing list, nobody will help a user who has had a whole partition corrupted? I think my report was clear and complete. In IRC, the only answer I got was: format your partition, there's nothing you can do and there's nothing to understand from this (from nice people I should

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Check if kobject is initialized before put

2015-06-22 Thread David Sterba
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 06:18:32PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: Signed-off-by: Anand Jain anand.j...@oracle.com Tested-by: David Sterba dste...@suse.cz Thanks, fixes the crash in the sysfs update patchset. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: Allow filesystem show command to handle different units

2015-06-22 Thread David Sterba
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:46:11PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: Now filesystem show command can handle different units now. This is handy for higher level programs to get accurate output from fi show command. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com Thanks, both applied with minor