Test script [1] tries to punch hole on a full FS and it works fine as
long as the hole size and the offset is aligned with the sectorsize and
the extent, so that it could just drop the relevant extent to create the
hole.
The reason why this test fails for non aligned hole size and offset
From: Omar Sandoval
The Btrfs swap code is going to need it, so give it a btrfs_ prefix and
make it non-static.
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 29 ++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+),
From: Omar Sandoval
Hi,
This series implements swap file support for Btrfs.
Changes from v7 [1]:
- Expanded a few commit messages
- Added Johannes' acked-by on patches 1 and 2
- Rebased on v4.19-rc4
No functional changes.
Thanks!
1: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg81933.html
From: Omar Sandoval
A later patch will implement swap file support for Btrfs, but before we
do that, we need to make sure that the various Btrfs ioctls cannot
change a swap file.
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
From: Omar Sandoval
Btrfs has not allowed swap files since commit 35054394c4b3 ("Btrfs: stop
providing a bmap operation to avoid swapfile corruptions"). However, now
that the proper restrictions are in place, Btrfs can support swap files
through the swap file a_ops, similar to iomap in commit
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 two. This makes us always call
->swap_deactivate() if
From: Omar Sandoval
Btrfs currently does not support swap files because swap's use of bmap
does not work with copy-on-write and multiple devices. See commit
35054394c4b3 ("Btrfs: stop providing a bmap operation to avoid swapfile
corruptions"). However, the swap code has a mechanism for the
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 positive number of extents it added
itself
-
Adding fsdevel@, linux-ext4, and btrfs@ (which has a separate subject
on this same issue)
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:23:38AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Fedora 29 has a new feature to test if boot+startup fails, so the
>> bootloader can
On 2018/9/20 上午4:11, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 09/19/2018 10:04 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> Hans van Kranenburg - 19.09.18, 19:58:
>>> However, as soon as we remount the filesystem with space_cache=v2 -
>>>
writes drop to just around 3-10 MB/s to each disk. If we remount to
On 09/19/2018 09:19 PM, Zbigniew 'zibi' Jarosik wrote:
Hi!
I can't mount my RAID1 set as rootfs, but as normal mount to running
system works normally. It was working normal, than some day it died.
When booted to rootfs as
root=UUID=98c94774-d93a-400e-a275-58cc3ac2a58a rootflags=subvol=@root
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:04 PM Pete wrote:
> snapshots. You need to delete it out of them as well which defeats the
> idea of read only snapshots if you are using them.
I wouldn't say it defeats the idea of read-only snapshots. If you want
to be able to "go back in time" and see what changed,
On 09/19/2018 03:41 PM, Piotr Pawłow wrote:
> Hello,
>> If the limit is 100 or less I'd need use a more complicated
>> rotation scheme.
>
> If you just want to thin them out over time without having selected "special"
> monthly, yearly etc snapshots, then my favorite scheme is to just compare
In Reply to:
On 30/08/2018 04.38, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Not directly related this series and just FYI,
> I'm working to allow sub show/list to non-privileged user as long
> as he can access to the subvolume:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg79285.html
>
> Hopefully
On 19.09.2018 23:11, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
> On 09/19/2018 10:04 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> Hans van Kranenburg - 19.09.18, 19:58:
>>> However, as soon as we remount the filesystem with space_cache=v2 -
>>>
writes drop to just around 3-10 MB/s to each disk. If we remount to
On 09/19/2018 10:04 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Hans van Kranenburg - 19.09.18, 19:58:
>> However, as soon as we remount the filesystem with space_cache=v2 -
>>
>>> writes drop to just around 3-10 MB/s to each disk. If we remount to
>>> space_cache - lots of writes, system unresponsive. Again
Hans van Kranenburg - 19.09.18, 19:58:
> However, as soon as we remount the filesystem with space_cache=v2 -
>
> > writes drop to just around 3-10 MB/s to each disk. If we remount to
> > space_cache - lots of writes, system unresponsive. Again remount to
> > space_cache=v2 - low writes, system
Am 13.9.2018 14:35, schrieb Nikolay Borisov:
On 13.09.2018 15:30, Jürgen Herrmann wrote:
OK, I will install kdump later and perform a dump after the hang.
One more noob question beforehand: does this dump contain sensitive
information, for example the luks encryption key for the disk etc? A
Am 13.9.2018 18:22, schrieb Chris Murphy:
(resend to all)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Nikolay Borisov
wrote:
On 13.09.2018 18:30, Chris Murphy wrote:
This is the 2nd or 3rd thread containing hanging btrfs send, with
kernel 4.18.x. The subject of one is "btrfs send hung in pipe_wait"
On 2018-09-19 15:08, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 18/09/2018 19.15, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
b. The bootloader code, would have to have sophisticated enough Btrfs
knowledge to know if the grubenv has been reflinked or snapshot,
because even if +C, it may not be valid to overwrite, and COW
On 18/09/2018 19.15, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> b. The bootloader code, would have to have sophisticated enough Btrfs
>> knowledge to know if the grubenv has been reflinked or snapshot,
>> because even if +C, it may not be valid to overwrite, and COW must
>> still happen, and there's no way the
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:28:00AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:09:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:45PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > From: Omar Sandoval
> > >
> > > Btrfs will need this for swap file support.
> > >
> > >
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:12:02AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:02:32PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:44PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > > @@ -2411,8 +2412,10 @@ static int setup_swap_extents(struct
> > > swap_info_struct *sis,
From: Goffredo Baroncelli
The original code which handles the recovery of a RAID 6 disks array
assumes that all reads are multiple of 1 << GRUB_DISK_SECTOR_BITS and it
assumes that all the I/O is done via the struct grub_diskfilter_segment.
This is not true for the btrfs code. In order to reuse
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:28 PM, sunny.s.zhang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My OS(4.1.12) panic in kmem_cache_alloc, which is called by
> btrfs_get_or_create_delayed_node.
>
> I found that the freelist of the slub is wrong.
>
> crash> struct kmem_cache_cpu 887e7d7a24b0
>
> struct kmem_cache_cpu {
>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:09:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:45PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > Btrfs will need this for swap file support.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
>
> That looks reasonable. After reading the last
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 02:02:32PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:44PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > @@ -2411,8 +2412,10 @@ static int setup_swap_extents(struct
> > swap_info_struct *sis, sector_t *span)
> >
> > if (mapping->a_ops->swap_activate) {
> >
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:45PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> Btrfs will need this for swap file support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
That looks reasonable. After reading the last patch, it's somewhat
understandable why you cannot simply implemnet ->bmap and
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:44PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> @@ -2411,8 +2412,10 @@ static int setup_swap_extents(struct swap_info_struct
> *sis, sector_t *span)
>
> if (mapping->a_ops->swap_activate) {
> ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_activate(sis, swap_file, span);
> +
Hi,
On 09/19/2018 10:43 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> I have a mysql slave which writes to a RAID-1 btrfs filesystem (with
> 4.17.14 kernel) on 3 x ~1.9 TB SSD disks; filesystem is around 40% full.
>
> The slave receives around 0.5-1 MB/s of data from the master over the
> network, which is
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> From: Omar Sandoval
>
> Hi,
>
> This series implements swap file support for Btrfs.
>
> Changes from v6 [1]:
>
> - Moved btrfs_get_chunk_map() comment to function body
> - Added more comments about pinned block group/device
On 19.09.2018 02:53, sunny.s.zhang wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> Thank you for your advice. I understand what you mean. But i have
> reviewed the latest btrfs code, and i think the issue is exist still.
>
> At 71 line, if the function of btrfs_get_delayed_node run over this
> line, then switch to
Hello,
> If the limit is 100 or less I'd need use a more complicated
> rotation scheme.
If you just want to thin them out over time without having selected "special"
monthly, yearly etc snapshots, then my favorite scheme is to just compare the
age of a snapshot to the distance to its
On 2018/9/19 下午9:19, Zbigniew 'zibi' Jarosik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I can't mount my RAID1 set as rootfs, but as normal mount to running
> system works normally. It was working normal, than some day it died.
>
> When booted to rootfs as
> root=UUID=98c94774-d93a-400e-a275-58cc3ac2a58a
Hi!
I can't mount my RAID1 set as rootfs, but as normal mount to running
system works normally. It was working normal, than some day it died.
When booted to rootfs as
root=UUID=98c94774-d93a-400e-a275-58cc3ac2a58a rootflags=subvol=@root
i got:
BTRFS error (device bcache2): devid 5 uuid
On 2018-09-19 04:43 AM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> I have a mysql slave which writes to a RAID-1 btrfs filesystem (with
> 4.17.14 kernel) on 3 x ~1.9 TB SSD disks; filesystem is around 40% full.
>
> The slave receives around 0.5-1 MB/s of data from the master over the
> network, which is then
On 19.09.2018 09:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In the following case, we could trigger a use-after-free bug:
>
> CPU0| CPU1
> -
> btrfs_remove_delayed_node|
On 2018/9/19 下午4:43, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> I have a mysql slave which writes to a RAID-1 btrfs filesystem (with
> 4.17.14 kernel) on 3 x ~1.9 TB SSD disks; filesystem is around 40% full.
This sounds a little concerning.
Not about the the usage percentage itself. but the size and how many
I have a mysql slave which writes to a RAID-1 btrfs filesystem (with
4.17.14 kernel) on 3 x ~1.9 TB SSD disks; filesystem is around 40% full.
The slave receives around 0.5-1 MB/s of data from the master over the
network, which is then saved to MySQL's relay log and executed. In ideal
On 2018/9/19 下午2:59, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In the following case, we could trigger a use-after-free bug:
>
> CPU0| CPU1
> -
> btrfs_remove_delayed_node| btrfs_get_delayed_node
In the following case, we could trigger a use-after-free bug:
CPU0| CPU1
-
btrfs_remove_delayed_node| btrfs_get_delayed_node
|- delayed_node =| |- node =
41 matches
Mail list logo
