Hello,
While my btrfs mounts ok on several instances of my home OpenElec, but
on ArchLinux it fails with:
[174828.954975] BTRFS error (device sdc): super_num_devices 3 mismatch
with num_devices 2 found here
[174828.956969] BTRFS error (device sdc): failed to read chunk tree: -22
Note that it ne
Hi,
today i've seen this one with 4.8-rc5 and the system was going to be
unresponsible.
BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=14 node=1 flags=0x0 nice=0 stuck for 33s!
BUG: workqueue lockup - pool cpus=14 node=1 flags=0x0 nice=-20 stuck for
33s!
Showing busy workqueues and worker pools:
workqueue kbl
Thanks,
this one works fine. No deadlocks.
Stefan
Am 09.09.2016 um 10:17 schrieb Wang Xiaoguang:
> cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call
> btrfs_delete_unused_bgs()
> to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may also
> result
> in false ENOSPC e
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 03:12:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patchset can be fetched from github:
> https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git wang_dedupe_20160907
>
> This version is just another small update, rebased to David's
> for-next-20160906 branch.
>
> This updates only includes one sm
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:07:16PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:38:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > I recall for FIEMAP that some filesystems may not have files aligned
> > > > to sector offset
On 09/09/2016 08:53 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:31:04PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
{
struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp;
+ static LIST_HEAD(pending_put);
Why is it static?
sorry my mi
btrfs_show_devname() is using the device_list_mutex, sometimes
a call to blkdev_put() leads vfs calling into this func. So
call blkdev_put() outside of device_list_mutex, as of now.
[ 983.284212] ==
[ 983.290401] [ INFO: possible circular locki
moparisthebest posted on Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:23:13 -0400 as excerpted:
> On 09/09/2016 02:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
>>> working yesterday. My array was in the
Hi,
While trying to enable skinny metadata on a filesystem, I got this error
(after minutes of reading from disk by the program):
-# btrfstune -x /dev/xvdb
extent-tree.c:2688: btrfs_reserve_extent: Assertion `ret` failed.
btrfstune[0x410ef6]
btrfstune[0x410f1d]
btrfstune(btrfs_reserve_extent+0x78
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 02:41:45PM +0200, Jan Koester wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> i got from btrfs scrub command segfault. I use btrfs tools 4.7.2.
>
> root@dibsi:/home/jan# btrfs scrub status /local
> Speicherzugriffsfehler
> root@dibsi:/home/jan# dmesg
> [78294.556713] BTRFS error (device sda)
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
>
> The output from btrfs fi show and fi df both indicate that the filesystem is
> essentially completely full.
?What am I missing?
https://www.moparisthebest.com/btrfs/btrfsfishow.txt
There's thousands of GiB's totally unallocated. J
On 09/09/2016 02:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
>> working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50%
>> remaining, when it hit an error and remounte
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:32 PM, moparisthebest
wrote:
> This is indeed an lzo compressed system, it's always been mounted with
> that option anyhow.
>
> btrfs check has been running for ~6 hours so far, I'll follow up with
> output on that when it finishes.
>
> Hmm, the problem with the 4.7.2/sy
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> On 2016-09-07 15:34, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I like the idea of matching WWN as part of the check, with a couple of
> caveats:
> 1. We need to keep in mind that in some environments, this can be spoofed
> (Virtualization for example, alt
On 2016-09-09 14:32, moparisthebest wrote:
On 09/09/2016 01:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest
wrote:
Hi,
I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50%
remainin
On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote:
Hi,
I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50%
remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only [1].
btrfs fi show output [2], btrfs df output
On 09/09/2016 01:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
>> working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50%
>> remaining, when it hit an error and r
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
> working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50%
> remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only [1].
> btrfs fi show output
Hi Linus,
We have three fixes in my for-linus-4.8 branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git
for-linus-4.8
I'm not proud of how long it took me to track down that one liner in
btrfs_sync_log(), but the good news is the patches I was trying to blame
for these pro
In order to more efficiently support sub-page blocksizes we need to stop
allocating pages from pagecache for our metadata. Instead switch to using the
account_metadata* counters for making sure we are keeping the system aware of
how much dirty metadata we have, and use the ->free_cached_objects su
On 2016-09-09 12:33, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:08:18PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-09-07 14:07, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:06 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
This is an issue with any filesystem,
Not really... any other file
On 2016-09-09 12:18, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:58:30AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote:
Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies.
On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote:
Does th
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:08:18PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-09-07 14:07, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:06 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >> This is an issue with any filesystem,
> > Not really... any other filesystem I'd know (not sure about
Hi,
I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit
working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50%
remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only [1].
btrfs fi show output [2], btrfs df output [3].
I unmounted the array, and when I tried
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:58:30AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote:
> > Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies.
> >
> > On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >> On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote:
> >>> Does the "path" argument of bt
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:22:17PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:20:59PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang
> > ---
> > cmds-check.c | 5 -
> > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
> > index 0ddf
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:21:00PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang
This + test image applied, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.ke
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 03:12:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patchset can be fetched from github:
> https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git wang_dedupe_20160907
>
> This version is just another small update, rebased to David's
> for-next-20160906 branch.
I've rebased it locally to the 4.9 pa
On 09/08/2016 08:50 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 08:58:48AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 07:50 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 09/08/2016 01:48 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> with 4.8-rc3 I get the following on an s390 box:
> >
On 09/09/2016 04:28 AM, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
hello,
When we rebase dedupe patches to David's for-next-20160906 branch,
we found below panic. By bisect, it seems that "Btrfs: kill the btree_inode"
causing this bug, please check.
Fstests case btrfs/060 can easily reproduce this bug.
Oops forgot
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:22:25PM +0100, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote:
> This is predominantly for maintainers:
>
> I've noticed that there is a lot of code for btrfs ... and after few
> glimpses I've noticed that there are occurrences which beg for some
> refactoring to make it less of a pain to mainta
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:32:28PM +0200, Lukas Lueg wrote:
> I'm currently fuzzing rev 2076992 and things start to slowly, slowly
> quiet down. We will probably run out of steam at the end of the week
> when a total of (roughly) half a billion BTRFS-images have passed by.
> I will switch revisions
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:31:04PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices)
> {
> struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp;
> + static LIST_HEAD(pending_put);
Why is it static?
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pending_put);
>
> if (--fs_
Hi,
i got from btrfs scrub command segfault. I use btrfs tools 4.7.2.
root@dibsi:/home/jan# btrfs scrub status /local
Speicherzugriffsfehler
root@dibsi:/home/jan# dmesg
[78294.556713] BTRFS error (device sda): bad tree block start
18427384836265136347 2304683610112
[78294.556956] BTRFS err
since boot at
http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/journal-20160909-oopses.log
)
Sep 09 02:18:33 smaug kernel: [ cut here ]
Sep 09 02:18:33 smaug kernel: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2189174 at
lib/list_debug.c:33 __list_add+0x86/0xb0
Sep 09 02:18:33 smaug kernel: list_add corruption.
On 09/09/16 12:18, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:17:48 +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
>
>> cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call
>> btrfs_delete_unused_bgs()
>> to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may
>> also result
>> in fa
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:17:48 +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call
> btrfs_delete_unused_bgs()
> to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may also
> result
> in false ENOSPC error.
With this v3 I can now no longer
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:25:15PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote:
> hello David,
>
> This patch's v2 version in your for-next-20160906 branch is still wrong,
> really sorry,
> please revert it.
Patch replaced with V3 in the upcoming for-next.
> Stefan Priebe has reported another similar issue, th
hello,
When we rebase dedupe patches to David's for-next-20160906 branch,
we found below panic. By bisect, it seems that "Btrfs: kill the btree_inode"
causing this bug, please check.
Fstests case btrfs/060 can easily reproduce this bug.
localhost login: [ 43.694734] BUG: unable to handle kerne
Looks like we need to take time to clean up device_list_mutex,
chunk_mutex, volume_mutex and rcu. As of now I have sent out,
[PATCH] btrfs: fix a possible umount deadlock
This has passed xfstests/btrfs.
Thanks, Anand
On 09/09/2016 08:38 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
Thanks for the report I
On Mon 22-08-16 13:35:02, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Now that we have metadata counters in the VM, we need to provide a way to kick
> writeback on dirty metadata. Introduce super_operations->write_metadata.
> This
> allows file systems to deal with writing back any dirty metadata we need based
> on th
hello David,
This patch's v2 version in your for-next-20160906 branch is still wrong,
really sorry,
please revert it.
Stefan Priebe has reported another similar issue, thought I didn't see
it in my
test environment. Now I choose to not call down_read(bg_delete_sem) for free
space inode, which
btrfs_show_devname() is using the device_list_mutex, sometimes
a call to blkdev_put() leads vfs calling into this func. So
call blkdev_put() outside of device_list_mutex, as of now.
[ 983.284212] ==
[ 983.290401] [ INFO: possible circular locki
cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call
btrfs_delete_unused_bgs()
to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may also
result
in false ENOSPC error. Please see below race window:
CPU1 | CPU2
On Mon 22-08-16 13:35:01, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Provide a mechanism for file systems to indicate how much dirty metadata they
> are holding. This introduces a few things
>
> 1) Zone stats for dirty metadata, which is the same as the NR_FILE_DIRTY.
> 2) WB stat for dirty metadata. This way we know
45 matches
Mail list logo
