On 2018/12/5 下午2:55, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 4.12.18 г. 22:14 ч., Wilson, Ellis wrote:
>> On 12/4/18 8:07 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> On 3.12.18 г. 20:20 ч., Wilson, Ellis wrote:
With 14TB drives available today, it doesn't take more than a handful of
drives to result in a
On 2018/12/19 下午11:41, devz...@web.de wrote:
> does compress-force really force compression?
It should.
The only exception is block size.
If the file is smaller than the sector size (4K for x86_64), then no
compression no matter whatever the mount options are.
>
> for me (found via compsize
On 12/19/2018 11:41 PM, devz...@web.de wrote:
does compress-force really force compression?
for me (found via compsize - see https://github.com/kilobyte/compsize/issues/24
) it looks it is problably forcing compression check for every block of a file
(while compress= makes btrfs skip compr
On 12/11/18 12:02 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [BUG]
> Since fb235dc06fac ("btrfs: qgroup: Move half of the qgroup accounting
> time out of commit trans"), kernel may lockup with quota enabled.
>
> There is one backref trace triggered by snapshot dropping along with
> write operation in the source subvo
does compress-force really force compression?
for me (found via compsize - see https://github.com/kilobyte/compsize/issues/24
) it looks it is problably forcing compression check for every block of a file
(while compress= makes btrfs skip compression check after first block) and if
some block
Hi,
I've planned to merge a few more patches to the 1st pull branch that belong to
a core change mentioned below as 'delayed refs reserve'. There are review
comments that I think should be addressed, so the patches are postponed.
Technically they're fixes and I presume it's ok to take them in the
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:50:20AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Since this function is no longer a callback there is no need to have
> its first argument obfuscated with a void *. Change it directly to a
> pointer to an inode. No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
> ---
> D
On 19 Dec 2018, at 5:33, ethanlien wrote:
> Martin Raiber 於 2018-12-17 22:00 寫到:
>
>
I had lockups with this patch as well. If you put e.g. a loop
device on
top of a btrfs file, loop sets PF_LESS_THROTTLE to avoid a feed
back
loop causing delays. The task balancing d
Martin Raiber 於 2018-12-17 22:00 寫到:
I had lockups with this patch as well. If you put e.g. a loop device
on
top of a btrfs file, loop sets PF_LESS_THROTTLE to avoid a feed back
loop causing delays. The task balancing dirty pages in
btrfs_finish_ordered_io doesn't have the flag and causes slo
On 19.12.18 г. 9:50 ч., Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Since this function is no longer a callback there is no need to have
> its first argument obfuscated with a void *. Change it directly to a
> pointer to an inode. No functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov
> ---
> David,
>
> Thi
10 matches
Mail list logo
