On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 16:20 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> and this works out properly, we only read the value once and so we
> won't
> trip over this problem again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel
--
All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
I spent the last few weeks running down a weird regression in btrfs we
were seeing in production. It turned out to be introduced by
62b37622718c, which took the following
loff_t isize = i_size_read(inode);
actual_end = min_t(u64, isize, end + 1);
and turned it into
actual_end = min_t(u64, i_si
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:39:26AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In btrfs_read_block_groups(), if we have an invalid block group which
> has mixed type (DATA|METADATA) while the fs doesn't have MIX_BGS
> feature, we error out without freeing the block group cache.
>
> This patch will add the missing b
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 08:26:42PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> You're right, and actually I got crashes in clean_bdev_aliases when I
> supplied a NULL bdev, so I'll add it to the changelog. Thanks.
Unless there are further comments, I won't resend the whole patchset.
The changelog in this patch w
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:43:59PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> In the fixup worker, if we fail to mark the range as delalloc in the io
> tree, we must release the previously reserved metadata, as well as update
> the outstanding extents counter for the inode, other
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:42:00PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 7.10.19 г. 22:37 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> > To remove use of extent_map::bdev we need to find a replacement, and the
> > latest_bdev is the only one we can use here, because inode::i_bdev and
> > superblock::s_bdev are NUL
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:41:20PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> When doing a buffered write it's possible to leave the subv_writers
> counter of the root, used for synchronization between buffered nocow
> writers and snapshotting. This happens in an exceptional case
11.10.2019 9:15, Ulli Horlacher пишет:
> On Thu 2019-10-10 (20:47), Kai Krakow wrote:
>
>> Actually, you could also just bind-mount into /mnt/btrfs, bind-mounts
>> won't inherit other mounts but will still see pure subvolumes.
>
> Next problem:
>
> root@ptm1:~# sysinfo
> System:Linux pt
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:41:33AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:17:41PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > Use the number of discardable extents to help guide our discard delay
> > interval. This value is reevaluated every transaction commit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:43:45PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> If we error out when finding a page at relocate_file_extent_cluster(), we
> need to release the outstanding extents counter on the relocation inode,
> set by the previous call to btrfs_delalloc_reserve_
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:23:11PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote:
> Some functions are doing some bikeshedding to reach the btrfs_fs_info
> struct. Change these functions to receive a btrfs_fs_info struct instead
> of a *file.
Makes sense, thanks. Added to msic-next.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:28:28PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:05 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> > We hit a regression while rolling out 5.2 internally where we were
> > hitting the following panic
> >
> > kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2659!
> > RIP: 0010:clear_page_di
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 04:41:20PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> When doing a buffered write it's possible to leave the subv_writers
> counter of the root, used for synchronization between buffered nocow
> writers and snapshotting. This happens in an exceptional case
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:00:42AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:17:37PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > block_group removal is a little tricky. It can race with the extent
> > allocator, the cleaner thread, and balancing. The current path is for a
> > block_group to be added
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:16:30AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:17:35PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > There is a cap in btrfs in the amount of free extents that a block group
> > can have. When it surpasses that threshold, future extents are placed
> > into bitmaps. Instea
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:40:37AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:38:10PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:37:28PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:17:34PM -0400, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > > Async discard will use the free spa
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:46:18PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 7.10.19 г. 23:17 ч., Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > Async discard will use the free space cache as backing knowledge for
> > which extents to discard. This patch plumbs knowledge about which
> > extents need to be discarded into th
From: Filipe Manana
When doing a buffered write it's possible to leave the subv_writers
counter of the root, used for synchronization between buffered nocow
writers and snapshotting. This happens in an exceptional case like the
following:
1) We fail to allocate data space for the write, since th
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:27 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:44:22PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Filipe Manana
> >
> > When doing a buffered write it's possible to leave the subv_writers
> > counter of the root, used for synchronization between buffered nocow
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:05 PM Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> We hit a regression while rolling out 5.2 internally where we were
> hitting the following panic
>
> kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2659!
> RIP: 0010:clear_page_dirty_for_io+0xe6/0x1f0
> Call Trace:
> __process_pages_contig+0x25a/0x350
>
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:44:22PM +0100, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> When doing a buffered write it's possible to leave the subv_writers
> counter of the root, used for synchronization between buffered nocow
> writers and snapshotting. This happens in an exceptional case
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:39:28AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The overall idea of the new BG_TREE is pretty simple:
> Put BLOCK_GROUP_ITEMS into a separate tree.
>
> This brings one obvious enhancement:
> - Reduce mount time of large fs
>
> Although it could be possible to accept BLOCK_GROUP_ITEMS
We hit a regression while rolling out 5.2 internally where we were
hitting the following panic
kernel BUG at mm/page-writeback.c:2659!
RIP: 0010:clear_page_dirty_for_io+0xe6/0x1f0
Call Trace:
__process_pages_contig+0x25a/0x350
? extent_clear_unlock_delalloc+0x43/0x70
submit_compressed_extents+0
On 2019-10-10 17:21, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
On Thu 2019-10-10 (20:47), Kai Krakow wrote:
I run into the problem that "rsync -ax" sees btrfs subvolumes as "other
filesystems" and ignores them.
I worked around it by mounting the btrfs-pool at a special directory:
mount -o subvolid=0 /dev/disk/b
On 11.10.19 г. 12:31 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/10/10 下午11:06, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> The code responsible for reading and initilizing tree roots is
>> scattered in open_ctree among 2 labels, emulating a loop. This is rather
>> confusing to reason about. Instead, factor the code in
On 2019/10/10 下午11:06, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> The code responsible for reading and initilizing tree roots is
> scattered in open_ctree among 2 labels, emulating a loop. This is rather
> confusing to reason about. Instead, factor the code in a new function,
> init_tree_roots which implements th
On 7.10.19 г. 23:17 ч., Dennis Zhou wrote:
> This series introduces async discard which will use the flag
> DISCARD_ASYNC, so rename the original flag to DISCARD_SYNC as it is
> synchronously done in transaction commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou
> ---
> fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 2 +-
> f
On 11/10/2019 10:21, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> It went to the top:
> + bool should_retry = btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, USEBACKUPROOT);
>
Args, /me is blind
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn
--
Johannes ThumshirnSUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumsh...@suse.de
On 11.10.19 г. 10:50 ч., Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 10/10/2019 17:06, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> -recovery_tree_root:
>> -if (!btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, USEBACKUPROOT))
>> -goto fail_tree_roots;
>
> What happened to this test in your refactoring?
It went to the top:
+ bo
On 10/10/2019 17:06, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> -recovery_tree_root:
> - if (!btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, USEBACKUPROOT))
> - goto fail_tree_roots;
What happened to this test in your refactoring?
--
Johannes ThumshirnSUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumsh...@suse.de
On 7.10.19 г. 23:17 ч., Dennis Zhou wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> With async discard, we try to emphasize discarding larger regions
> and reusing the lba (implicit discard). The first is done by using the
> free space cache to maintain discard state and thus allows us to get
> coalescing for fairly
On 9.10.19 г. 19:43 ч., fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana
>
> In the fixup worker, if we fail to mark the range as delalloc in the io
> tree, we must release the previously reserved metadata, as well as update
> the outstanding extents counter for the inode, otherwise we leak me
32 matches
Mail list logo
