On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 01:07:00PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Implement the swap file a_ops on Btrfs. Activation needs to make sure
> > that the file can be used as a swap file, which currently means it must
> >
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 09:00:58AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 04:50:55PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:41:28PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > From: Omar Sandoval
> > >
> > > When a swap file is active, we must make sure that the extents of
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 01:10:59PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年05月18日 13:02, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 18.05.2018 05:59, Liu Bo wrote:
> >> As verify_level_key() is checked after verify_parent_transid(), i.e.
> >>
> >> if (verify_parent_transid())
> >>ret = -EIO;
> >>
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:21:41PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > The Btrfs swap code is going to need it, so give it a btrfs_ prefix and
> > make it non-static.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
>
> Reviewed-b
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 04:50:55PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:41:28PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > When a swap file is active, we must make sure that the extents of the
> > file are not moved and that they don't become shared. That means
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:54:22AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> btrfs_free_extra_devids() is called only in the mount context which
> traverses through the fs_devices::devices and frees the orphan devices
> devices in the given %fs_devices if any. As the search for the orphan
> device is limited to f
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:43:25PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Reported-by: Ken Swenson
> Reported-by: Ben Parsons <9parso...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
> ---
> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 43 +++
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/b
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:41:28PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> When a swap file is active, we must make sure that the extents of the
> file are not moved and that they don't become shared. That means that
> the following are not safe:
>
> - chattr +c (enable compression
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git
blk-iolatency
head: 6bbc4451bcc7359b14e190615ff671fd63e34d62
commit: 605adede5ce998f9e834c1783e74dc0660b346db [6/13] blkcg: add generic
throttling mechanism
config: i386-tinyconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-7
tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git
blk-iolatency
head: 6bbc4451bcc7359b14e190615ff671fd63e34d62
commit: e13e26d1ad161949ae1fdd02623c2d81a666328e [7/13] memcontrol: schedule
throttling if we are congested
config: x86_64-randconfig-x018-201820 (attached a
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:28:03PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Error message from qgroup_rescan_init() mostly looks like:
>
> --
> BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p1): qgroup_rescan_init failed with -115
> --
>
> Which is far from meaningful, and sometimes confusing as for above
> -EINPROGRESS it
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > ie if we had more,
> > could we solve our pain by making them more generic?
>
> Well, if you have more you will consume more bits in the struct pages,
> right?
Not necessarily ... the zone number is stored in the struct page
curren
On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> Implement the swap file a_ops on Btrfs. Activation needs to make sure
> that the file can be used as a swap file, which currently means it must
> be fully allocated as nocow with no compression on one device. It also
> sets up
From: Michal Hocko [mailto:mho...@kernel.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:19 PM>
> > Let me try to reply your questions.
> > Exactly, GFP_ZONE_TABLE is too complicated. I think there are two advantages
> > from the series of patches.
> >
> > 1. XOR operation is simple and efficient, GFP_ZONE_TA
On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> The Btrfs swap code is going to need it, so give it a btrfs_ prefix and
> make it non-static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
nit: How about introducing proper kernel doc for this function, no
On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> btrfs_ioctl_rm_dev() and btrfs_ioctl_rm_dev_v2() both manipulate this
> bit. Let's move it into the common btrfs_rm_device(), which also makes
> the following change to deal with swap files easier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sand
On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> The documentation for these functions is wrong in several ways:
>
> - swap_activate() is called with the inode locked
> - swap_activate() takes a swap_info_struct * and a sector_t *
> - swap_activate() can also return a positi
On 25.05.2018 00:41, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> The SWP_FILE flag serves two purposes: to make swap_{read,write}page()
> go through the filesystem, and to make swapoff() call
> ->swap_deactivate(). For Btrfs, we want the latter but not the former,
> so split this flag into t
On 2018年05月25日 14:33, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 25.05.2018 07:43, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> There are already 2 reports about strangely corrupted super blocks,
>> where csum still matches but extra garbage gets slipped into super block.
>>
>> The corruption would looks like:
>> --
>> superb
19 matches
Mail list logo
