Filipe Manana wrote on 2016/02/24 07:27 +:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Btrfs has its sysfs interface showing what features current kernel/btrfs
module support.
Add _require_btrfs_kernel_feature() to check such interface.
I think you sent the wrong patch. This doe
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Btrfs has its sysfs interface showing what features current kernel/btrfs
> module support.
>
> Add _require_btrfs_kernel_feature() to check such interface.
I think you sent the wrong patch. This doesn't add such a function and
the changes are e
Btrfs balance will reloate date extent, but its hash is removed too late
at run_delayed_ref() time, which will cause extent ref increased
increased during balance, cause either find_data_references() gives
WARN_ON() or even run_delayed_refs() fails and cause transaction abort.
Add such concurrency
Rename _require_btrfs() to _require_btrfs_subcommand() to avoid
confusion, as all other _require_btrfs_* has a quite clear suffix, like
_require_btrfs_mkfs_feature() or _require_btrfs_fs_feature().
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
common/rc | 2 +-
tests/btrfs/004 | 2 +-
tests/btrfs/048 | 1 +
Add test case to check btrfs dedup enable/disable race.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
tests/btrfs/201 | 100
tests/btrfs/201.out | 1 +
tests/btrfs/group | 1 +
3 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/201
c
Btrfs has its sysfs interface showing what features current kernel/btrfs
module support.
Add _require_btrfs_kernel_feature() to check such interface.
Also rename _require_btrfs() to _require_btrfs_subcommand() to avoid
confusion.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
common/rc | 2 +-
tests/btrfs
This test will check per inode dedup flag.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
tests/btrfs/202 | 116
tests/btrfs/202.out | 15 +++
tests/btrfs/group | 1 +
3 files changed, 132 insertions(+)
create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/202
create m
Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication, including:
1) Enable
2) Re-enable
3) On disk extents are refering to same bytenr
4) Disable
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
common/defrag | 8
tests/btrfs/200 | 125
tests/btrfs/20
Since we are push btrfs in-band de-duplication for v4.6, it's better to
add test cases for this new feature.
Except the first basic function test, the rest are all regression test
which we found during the development.
We also found some bugs from the generic test, but we need some xfstests
option
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Kenny MacDermid
wrote:
>
> rw,noatime,compress=lzo,ssd,discard,space_cache,autodefrag,inode_cache
It sounds like an ssd trim bug. I'd check the firmware for updates. If
it's up to date, I'd drop discard mount option first and try to
reproduce. Or just use the def
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 05:56:58PM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:40:46PM -0400, Kenny MacDermid wrote:
> > I'm running btrfs on DM-Crypt Luks running on LVM.
> >
> > Occasionally I get files that are unreadable for some period of time.
> > Attempting to read from them resu
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:40:46PM -0400, Kenny MacDermid wrote:
> I'm running btrfs on DM-Crypt Luks running on LVM.
>
> Occasionally I get files that are unreadable for some period of time.
> Attempting to read from them results in an
>
> Input/output error
>
> Sometimes they'll come back on
David Sterba wrote on 2016/02/23 15:45 +0100:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:36:44AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 02/19/2016 09:41 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
Saw below warn leading to bug when running btrfs/011, not
reproducible. Any idea ?
Seems like another wq_destroy race.
But it's hard
I'm running btrfs on DM-Crypt Luks running on LVM.
Occasionally I get files that are unreadable for some period of time.
Attempting to read from them results in an
Input/output error
Sometimes they'll come back on their own, and sometimes a scrub seems to
help, but sometimes I just have to dele
Marc MERLIN posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:19:44 -0800 as excerpted:
> Cabling is indeed a likely culprit, I'm just surprised that if it's the
> case, the sata layer is showing me nothing (I'm doing tail -f
> /var/log/kern.log and usually I'd see sata or PMP errors there)
That /is/ surprising. No
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:22:47PM +, Duncan wrote:
> Forgot to mention, tho you're probably already considering it, if this is
> the same raid5-backed btrfs you were complaining about being slow in the
> other thread,
No, that's another one :)
This one was remade from scratch after the fil
On 2016/02/23 2:52, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
From: Filipe Manana
In the listxattrs handler, we were not listing all the xattrs that are
packed in the same btree item, which happens when multiple xattrs have
a name that when crc32c hashed produce the same checksum value.
Fix this by processin
Duncan posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:17:06 + as excerpted:
> Marc MERLIN posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:59:11 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> I have a freshly created md5 array, with drives that I specifically
>> scanned one by one block by block, and for good measure, I also scanned
>> the entire so
Marc MERLIN posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:59:11 -0800 as excerpted:
> I have a freshly created md5 array, with drives that I specifically
> scanned one by one block by block, and for good measure, I also scanned
> the entire software raid with a check command which took 3 days to run.
>
> Everyth
I have a freshly created md5 array, with drives that I specifically
scanned one by one block by block, and for good measure, I also scanned
the entire software raid with a check command which took 3 days to run.
Everything passed.
Then, I made a bcache of that device, an ssd that seems to work fi
Le 23/02/2016 19:30, Marc MERLIN a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Lionel Bouton wrote:
>> Why don't you use autodefrag ? If you have writable snapshots and do
>> write to them heavily it would not be a good idea (depending on how
>> BTRFS handles this in most cases you would pr
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 07:01:52PM +0100, Lionel Bouton wrote:
> Why don't you use autodefrag ? If you have writable snapshots and do
> write to them heavily it would not be a good idea (depending on how
> BTRFS handles this in most cases you would probably either break the
> reflinks or fragment a
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:14:34PM -0500, Hongxu Jia wrote:
> The rule to create symlink in Makefile caused parallel issue:
> $ make -j 40 DESTDIR=/image install BUILD_VERBOSE=1
> ...
> 1 [LN] libbtrfs.so.0
> 2 [LN] libbtrfs.so
> 3 ln -s -f libbtrfs.so.0.1 libbtrfs.so.0
> 4
On 2016-02-23 12:34, Nazar Mokrynskyi wrote:
Wow, this is interesting, didn't know it.
I'll probably try noatime instead:)
For what it's worth, due to how it's implemented on almost every UNIX
derived system in existence (including Linux), atimes are essentially
useless. A majority of the so
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 03:49:49PM +0100, Alexander Fougner wrote:
> The long-term plan is to merge the features of standalone tools
> into the btrfs binary, reducing the number of shipped binaries.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Fougner
Replaced v1, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Le 23/02/2016 18:34, Marc MERLIN a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:26:35AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>> Label: 'dshelf2' uuid: d4a51178-c1e6-4219-95ab-5c5864695bfd
>> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 4.25TiB
>> devid1 size 7.28TiB used 4.44TiB path /dev/mapper/dshelf2
>>
>> b
Looks like btrfstune -x did nothing, probably, it was already used at
creation time, I'm using rcX versions of kernel all the time and rolling
version of Ubuntu, so this is very likely to be the case.
One thing I've noticed is much slower mount/umount on HDD than on SSD:
nazar-pc@nazar-pc ~>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 09:26:35AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Label: 'dshelf2' uuid: d4a51178-c1e6-4219-95ab-5c5864695bfd
> Total devices 1 FS bytes used 4.25TiB
> devid1 size 7.28TiB used 4.44TiB path /dev/mapper/dshelf2
>
> btrfs fi df /mnt/btrfs_pool2/
> Data, single: tota
Wow, this is interesting, didn't know it.
I'll probably try noatime instead:)
Sincerely, Nazar Mokrynskyi
github.com/nazar-pc
Skype: nazar-pc
Diaspora: naza...@diaspora.mokrynskyi.com
Tox:
A9D95C9AA5F7A3ED75D83D0292E22ACE84BA40E912185939414475AF28FD2B2A5C8EF5261249
On 23.02.16 18:29, Alexander
2016-02-23 18:18 GMT+01:00 Nazar Mokrynskyi :
> But why? I have relatime option, it should not cause changes unless file
> contents is actually changed if I understand this option correctly.
>
*or* if it is older than 1 day. From the manpages:
relatime
Update inode access times rela
Well, since we're on the topic, my backup server btrfs FS has become so
slow that it hangs my system a few seconds here and there and causes
some of my cron jobs to fail.
I'm going to re-create it for a 3 time (in 3 years), adding bcache this
time, but clearly there is a good chance that this file
But why? I have relatime option, it should not cause changes unless file
contents is actually changed if I understand this option correctly.
Sincerely, Nazar Mokrynskyi
github.com/nazar-pc
Skype: nazar-pc
Diaspora: naza...@diaspora.mokrynskyi.com
Tox:
A9D95C9AA5F7A3ED75D83D0292E22ACE84BA40E9121
2016-02-23 17:55 GMT+01:00 Nazar Mokrynskyi :
>> > What is wrong with noatime,relatime? I'm using them for a long time as
>> > good compromise in terms of performance.
>> The one option ends up canceling the other, as they're both atime related
>> options that say do different things.
>>
>> I'd hav
> What is wrong with noatime,relatime? I'm using them for a long time as
> good compromise in terms of performance.
The one option ends up canceling the other, as they're both atime related
options that say do different things.
I'd have to actually setup a test or do some research to be sure whic
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:36:44AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 02/19/2016 09:41 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
> >
> >
> > Saw below warn leading to bug when running btrfs/011, not
> > reproducible. Any idea ?
> >
> Seems like another wq_destroy race.
>
> But it's hard to locate which wq is the
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:36:44AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 02/19/2016 09:41 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
> >
> >
> > Saw below warn leading to bug when running btrfs/011, not
> > reproducible. Any idea ?
> >
> Seems like another wq_destroy race.
>
> But it's hard to locate which wq is the
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:49:19PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> With this, btrfs/011 no more produces warnings in dmesg.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
Patch added to next for 4.6.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.or
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:53:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> With CONFIG_SMP and CONFIG_PREEMPT both disabled, gcc decides
> to partially inline the get_state_failrec() function but cannot
> figure out that means the failrec pointer is always valid
> if the function returns success, which cause
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:06:59AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > I'm not sure why, but my gcc 5.3.1 think's that a member of failrec can
> > be used uninitialized:
> >
> >CC [M] fs/btrfs/extent_io.o
> > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c: In function ‘clean_io_failure’:
> > fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:2133:4: warnin
39 matches
Mail list logo
