2012/1/7 Christian Brunner :
> 2012/1/5 Chris Mason :
>> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:12:16AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:45:00PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Unfortunately, this one works fo
2012/1/5 Chris Mason :
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:12:16AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:45:00PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > > > On T
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 08:24:32AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, 08:02:55 EST, Chris Mason
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, same thing here. I'm testing a fix now, it's pretty dumb. We're
> > not allocating more metadata chunks from the drive because of where the
> > allocation is h
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012, 08:02:55 EST, Chris Mason wrote:
> Yeah, same thing here. I'm testing a fix now, it's pretty dumb. We're
> not allocating more metadata chunks from the drive because of where the
> allocation is happening, so it is just a check for "do we need a new
> chunk" in the right
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 07:12:16AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:45:00PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52A
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:45:00PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> > > > On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner w
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> > > On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > > Looks to be reproducable.
> > >
> > > Does this
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:01:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> > On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > Looks to be reproducable.
> >
> > Does this happen with rc6 ?
>
> I haven't tried. All I'm doing is running some benc
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 02:11:31PM -0500, Liu Bo wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 09:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:23:18PM -0500, Liu Bo wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2012 06:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On 05/01/12 0
On 01/04/2012 09:26 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:23:18PM -0500, Liu Bo wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 06:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Looks to be reproducable.
>>>
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 09:23:18PM -0500, Liu Bo wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 06:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> >> On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>
> >>> Looks to be reproducable.
> >> Does this happen with rc6 ?
> >
> > I haven'
On 01/04/2012 06:01 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
>> On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>
>>> Looks to be reproducable.
>> Does this happen with rc6 ?
>
> I haven't tried. All I'm doing is running some benchmarks to get
> numbers for a
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 09:23:52AM +1100, Chris Samuel wrote:
> On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > Looks to be reproducable.
>
> Does this happen with rc6 ?
I haven't tried. All I'm doing is running some benchmarks to get
numbers for a talk I'm giving about improvements in XFS metadata
On 05/01/12 09:11, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Looks to be reproducable.
Does this happen with rc6 ?
If not then it might be easy to track down as there are only
2 modifications between rc6 and rc7..
commit 08c422c27f855d27b0b3d9fa30ebd938d4ae6f1f
Author: Al Viro
Date: Fri Dec 23 07:58:13 2011 -05
On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 08:44:45AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Hi there buttery folks,
>
> I just hit this warning and oops running a parallel fs_mark create
> workload on a test VM using a 17TB btrfs filesystem (12 disk dm
> RAID0) using default mkfs and mount parmeters, mounted on
> /mnt/scratc
15 matches
Mail list logo