On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:32:41PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:38:56PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > Moving the discussion to fsdevel.
> >
> > Summary: disabling MS_I_VERSION brings some speedups to btrfs, but the
> > generic 'noiversion' option cannot be used to achi
On 24 June 2015 at 05:20, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> Just curious, is anyone seeing similar things with big VM images or other
> DBs?
> I forgot to mention that my vdi file is 88GB.
>
> It's surprising that it took longer to count the fragments than to actually
> defragment the file.
Patrik Lundquist posted on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:28:09 +0200 as excerpted:
> But what doesn't make sense to me is btrfs fi defrag; the -t option says
>
>-t
>defragment only files at least bytes big
>
> The -t value goes into struct
> btrfs_ioctl_defrag_range_args.exte
On 24 June 2015 at 12:46, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Patrik Lundquist posted on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:28:09 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> AFAIK, it's set huge to defrag everything,
It's set to 256K by default.
> Assuming "set a huge -t to defrag to the maximum extent possible" is
> correct,
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:15:29 AM EDT, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:07:00AM +0800, wangyf wrote:
Hi,
I have tested your PATCH v2 , but something wrong happened.
kernel: 4.1.0-rc7+ with your five patches
vitrualBox ubuntu14.10-server + LVM
I make a new btrfs.ko with you
btrfs fi defrag -t 1T overflows the u32 thresh variable and default, instead of
max, threshold is used.
Signed-off-by: Patrik Lundquist
---
cmds-filesystem.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-filesystem.c b/cmds-filesystem.c
index 530f815..72bb45b 1006
There is a cut and paste error so instead of freeing "head_ref", we free
"ref" twice.
Fixes: 3368d001ba5d ('btrfs: qgroup: Record possible quota-related extent for
qgroup.')
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c b/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c
index fd64fd0..ac3e81d 100644
-
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:30:06PM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > No need to introduce the wrappers, it's enough to add an alternative
> > usage string and the callback function will be the same. Also please
> > keep the aliased entries next to each other.
>
> So the reason I did that way is that
We're also going to want to support aliases, so rather than adding
another member, replace "hidden" with a "flags" member.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
cmds-filesystem.c | 2 +-
commands.h| 8 ++--
help.c| 2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff -
There's an awkward asymmetry between btrfs device add and btrfs device
delete. Resolve this by aliasing delete to remove.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval
---
Documentation/btrfs-device.asciidoc | 5 -
cmds-device.c | 35 ++-
commands.h
The opposite of btrfs device add is btrfs device delete. This really
should be btrfs device remove.
Changes from v1:
- Add support for flags to cmd_struct and a CMD_ALIAS flag which only
prints the one-line usage string
- Rearrange the command wrappers in a way that could be made generic if
ne
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:42:15AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:38:56PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > Moving the discussion to fsdevel.
> >
> > Summary: disabling MS_I_VERSION brings some speedups to btrfs, but the
> > generic 'noiversion' option cannot be used to achie
On 06/22/2015 10:53 PM, Moby wrote:
OpenSuSE 13.2 system with single BTRFS / mounted on top of /dev/md1.
/dev/md1 is md raid5 across 4 SATA disks.
System details are:
Linux suse132 4.0.5-4.g56152db-default #1 SMP Thu Jun 18 15:11:06 UTC
2015 (56152db) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
btrfs-
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:32:41PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> This has caused pain for the nfsv4 folks since it means that they need
> to tell people to use a special mount option for ext4 if they are
> actually using this for nfsv4, and I suspect they won't be all that
> eager to hear that btrf
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:27:24AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > #define BTRFS_INODE_IN_DELALLOC_LIST 9
> > > #define BTRFS_INODE_READDIO_NEED_LOCK10
> > > #define BTRFS_INODE_HAS_PROPS11
> > > +#define BTRFS_INODE_NOTIMESTAMP 12
> > > +#
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 05:32:33PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There is a cut and paste error so instead of freeing "head_ref", we free
> "ref" twice.
>
> Fixes: 3368d001ba5d ('btrfs: qgroup: Record possible quota-related extent for
> qgroup.')
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
Thanks Dan! Queu
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 05:11:56PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 03:47:42PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_received_subvol_args_32 {
> >
> >
> > static int btrfs_clone(struct inode
On Tuesday 23 June 2015 16:45:01 David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:03:47AM +0200, Sjoerd wrote:
> > On Monday 22 June 2015 17:00:23 David Sterba wrote:
> > > btrfs-progs 4.1 have been released (in time with kernel 4.1). Unusual
> > > load
> > > of changes.
> >
> > Would it be benefi
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:02:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
>
> This sounds similar to what Dave proposed, a per-inode I_VERSION
> attribute that can be changed through chattr. Though the negated meaning
> of the flag could be confusing, I had to reread the paragraph again.
Dave did not specify
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 07:17:50PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:02:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> >
> > This sounds similar to what Dave proposed, a per-inode I_VERSION
> > attribute that can be changed through chattr. Though the negated meaning
> > of the flag could
Known already fixed problem, or not?
[680279.909435] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4548!
[680279.926208] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[680279.940494] Modules linked in: udp_diag tcp_diag inet_diag loop veth
ip6table_filter ip6_tables ebtable_nat ebtables ppdev lp xt_addrtype bridge stp
llc
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 06:38:42PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Known already fixed problem, or not?
>
> [680279.909435] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4548!
> [680279.926208] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
After reboot, I'm now seeing this if that helps:
[ 272.826942] BTRFS info (device dm-1)
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 08:21:30PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:27:24AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > > > #define BTRFS_INODE_IN_DELALLOC_LIST 9
> > > > #define BTRFS_INODE_READDIO_NEED_LOCK 10
> > > > #define BTRFS_INODE_HAS_PROPS 11
> >
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 06:38:42PM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Known already fixed problem, or not?
>
> [680279.909435] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:4548!
> [680279.926208] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> [680279.940494] Modules linked in: udp_diag tcp_diag inet_diag loop veth
> ip6table_fi
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:28:36PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> In the case that we dedupe the tail of a file, we might expand the dedupe
> len out to the end of our last block. We don't want to compare data past
> i_size however, so pass the original length to btrfs_cmp_data().
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 02:28:37PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> ->readpage() does page_lock() before extent_lock(), we do the opposite in
> extent-same. We want to reverse the order in btrfs_extent_same() but it's
> not quite straightforward since the page locks are taken inside
> btrfs_cmp_data().
Patrik Lundquist posted on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:05:57 +0200 as excerpted:
> On 24 June 2015 at 12:46, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Patrik Lundquist posted on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:28:09 +0200 as
>> excerpted:
>>
>> AFAIK, it's set huge to defrag everything,
>
> It's set to 256K by default
Omar Sandoval posted on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:09:15 -0700 as excerpted:
> The opposite of btrfs device add is btrfs device delete. This really
> should be btrfs device remove.
What about btrfs device subtract? That's what _I_'d call the opposite of
add. Otherwise, add/remove instead of add/delet
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 02:05:04PM +0300, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:19:06PM +0300, Robert Munteanu wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> > Note to others: kernel 4.0.4
> >
> > Reply to you:
> > I tried ext4 to btrfs once a year ago
I confirmed this bug report, and found the reason is that
I compiled the patched module with a dirty kernel.
This morning I tested this patch again, and didn't see above error,
this patch is OK.
Sorry for this bug report. : (
在 2015年06月24日 20:00, Ed Tomlinson 写道:
On Wednesday, June 24, 20
On 25 June 2015 at 06:01, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Patrik Lundquist posted on Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:05:57 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > On 24 June 2015 at 12:46, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> If it's uint32 limited, either kill everything above that in both the
> documentation
31 matches
Mail list logo
