-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/18/2014 11:24 AM, Alex Lyakas wrote:
> Hi Josef, is this the commit to look at:
> 6df9a95e63395f595d0d1eb5d561dd6c91c40270 Btrfs: make the chunk
> allocator completely tree lockless
>
> or some other commits are also relevant?
>
It's been so
Hi Josef,
is this the commit to look at:
6df9a95e63395f595d0d1eb5d561dd6c91c40270 Btrfs: make the chunk
allocator completely tree lockless
or some other commits are also relevant?
Alex.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/18/2014 10:47 AM, Alex Lyakas wrote:
> Hello Josef,
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Josef Bacik
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while
>>> playi
Hello Josef,
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
>> An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
>> ceph based on btrfs.
>>
>> Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk,
>>
On 01/31/2013 08:33 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:37:40PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 09:38 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:37:40PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 09:38 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> > On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:37:40PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 09:38 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> > On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > >
On 01/30/2013 09:38 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
>> > On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > >> > On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> > >>> > > On T
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> > On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> > On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:05:17PM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> > On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > >
On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
>> > On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> Hi Josef,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patch - sorry for the l
On 01/29/2013 01:04 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
>> On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
Hi Josef,
Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:41:10AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> >> Hi Josef,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
> >>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I've been tryin
On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
>> Hi Josef,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
>>
>
> Jim,
>
> I've been trying to reason out how this happens, could you do a btrfs fi df on
> the filesystem
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:43:31PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:50:34AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> You can use scsi_debug device with
>
> parm: lbpu:enable LBP, support UNMAP command (def=0) (int)
Also, loop device with a file backed by a filesystem with hole
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:50:34AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:47:30AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > 251 [not run] FSTRIM is not supported
> >
> > Are you sure its 251? Thanks,
>
> Sorry it's early, I need a device that does trim. /me waits for his fusion
> card
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:47:30AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:30:09PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:23:31PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > > > Hi Josef,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:30:09PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:23:31PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > > Hi Josef,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
> > >
> >
> > Jim,
> >
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:23:31PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> > Hi Josef,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
> >
>
> Jim,
>
> I've been trying to reason out how this happens, could you do a btrfs f
On 01/28/2013 02:23 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
>> Hi Josef,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
>>
>
> Jim,
>
> I've been trying to reason out how this happens, could you do a btrfs fi df on
> the filesystem
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:44:46AM -0700, Jim Schutt wrote:
> Hi Josef,
>
> Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
>
Jim,
I've been trying to reason out how this happens, could you do a btrfs fi df on
the filesystem thats giving you trouble so I can see if what I think is
Hi Josef,
Thanks for the patch - sorry for the long delay in testing...
On 12/18/2012 06:52 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
>> An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
>> ceph based on btrfs.
>>
>> Current updating
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:47:51AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:52:42AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
> > > ceph based on btrfs.
> > >
> > > C
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:52:42AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> > An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
> > ceph based on btrfs.
> >
> > Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk,
> >
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote:
> An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
> ceph based on btrfs.
>
> Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk,
> so we -may- need to do a recursive chunk allocation when adding/updating
An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with
ceph based on btrfs.
Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk,
so we -may- need to do a recursive chunk allocation when adding/updating
dev extent, that is where the deadlock comes from.
If we use SYST
27 matches
Mail list logo
