On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:46:20AM +0100, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
> When I try to access a btrfs filesystem via nfs, I get the error:
>
> root@tsmsrvi:~# mount tsmsrvj:/data/fex /nfs/tsmsrvj/fex
> root@tsmsrvi:~# time find /nfs/tsmsrvj/fex | wc -l
> find: File system loop detected; '/nfs/tsmsrvj/fex
On Wed 2021-03-10 (07:59), Hugo Mills wrote:
> > On tsmsrvj I have in /etc/exports:
> >
> > /data/fex tsmsrvi(rw,async,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash)
> >
> > This is a btrfs subvolume with snapshots:
> >
> > root@tsmsrvj:~# btrfs subvolume list /data
> > ID 257 gen 35 top level 5 path f
On Wed 2021-03-10 (08:46), Ulli Horlacher wrote:
> When I try to access a btrfs filesystem via nfs, I get the error:
>
> root@tsmsrvi:~# mount tsmsrvj:/data/fex /nfs/tsmsrvj/fex
> root@tsmsrvi:~# time find /nfs/tsmsrvj/fex | wc -l
> find: File system loop detected; '/nfs/tsmsrvj/fex/spool' is part
This patchset can be fetched from the following github repo, along with
the full subpage RW support:
https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/subpage
This patchset is for metadata read write support.
[FULL RW TEST]
Since the data write path is not included in this patchset, we can't
really test t
Add extra sysfs interface features/supported_ro_sectorsize and
features/supported_rw_sectorsize to indicate subpage support.
Currently for supported_rw_sectorsize all architectures only have their
PAGE_SIZE listed.
While for supported_ro_sectorsize, for systems with 64K page size, 4K
sectorsize i
In alloc_extent_buffer(), we make sure that the newly allocated page is
never dirty.
This is fine for sector size == PAGE_SIZE case, but for subpage it's
possible that one extent buffer in the page is dirty, thus the whole
page is marked dirty, and could cause false alert.
To support subpage, cal
In btrfs_invalidatepage() we re-declare @tree variable as
btrfs_ordered_inode_tree.
Since it's only used to do the spinlock, we can grab it from inode
directly, and remove the unnecessary declaration completely.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 8 ++--
1 file changed, 2 inser
Add a new helper, csum_dirty_subpage_buffers(), to iterate through all
dirty extent buffers in one bvec.
Also extract the code of calculating csum for one extent buffer into
csum_one_extent_buffer(), so that both the existing csum_dirty_buffer()
and the new csum_dirty_subpage_buffers() can reuse t
For btree_set_page_dirty(), we should also check the extent buffer
sanity for subpage support.
Unlike the regular sector size case, since one page can contain multiple
extent buffers, we need to make sure there is at least one dirty extent
buffer in the page.
So this patch will iterate through th
There are quite some assert check on page uptodate in extent buffer write
accessors.
They ensure the destination page is already uptodate.
This is fine for regular sector size case, but not for subpage case, as
for subpage we only mark the page uptodate if the page contains no hole
and all its ext
For set_extent_buffer_dirty() to support subpage sized metadata, just
call btrfs_page_set_dirty() to handle both cases.
For clear_extent_buffer_dirty(), it needs to clear the page dirty if and
only if all extent buffers in the page range are no longer dirty.
Also do the same for page error.
This
This patch introduces the following functions to handle btrfs subpage
writeback status:
- btrfs_subpage_set_writeback()
- btrfs_subpage_clear_writeback()
- btrfs_subpage_test_writeback()
Those helpers can only be called when the range is ensured to be
inside the page.
- btrfs_page_set_writebac
Current set_btree_ioerr() only accepts @page parameter and grabs extent
buffer from page::private.
This works fine for sector size == PAGE_SIZE case, but not for subpage
case.
Adds an extra parameter, @eb, for callers to pass extent buffer to this
function, so that subpage code can reuse this fun
In btrfs_invalidatepage() we introduce a temporary variable, new_len, to
update ordered->truncated_len.
But we can use min() to replace it completely and no need for the
variable.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 6 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --g
The new function, write_one_subpage_eb(), as a subroutine for subpage
metadata write, will handle the extent buffer bio submission.
The major differences between the new write_one_subpage_eb() and
write_one_eb() is:
- No page locking
When entering write_one_subpage_eb() the page is no longer loc
The new function, end_bio_subpage_eb_writepage(), will handle the
metadata writeback endio.
The major differences involved are:
- How to grab extent buffer
Now page::private is a pointer to btrfs_subpage, we can no longer grab
extent buffer directly.
Thus we need to use the bv_offset to loca
This patch introduce the following functions to handle btrfs subpage
dirty status:
- btrfs_subpage_set_dirty()
- btrfs_subpage_clear_dirty()
- btrfs_subpage_test_dirty()
Those helpers can only be called when the range is ensured to be
inside the page.
- btrfs_page_set_dirty()
- btrfs_page_clea
The new function, submit_eb_subpage(), will submit all the dirty extent
buffers in the page.
The major difference between submit_eb_page() and submit_eb_subpage()
is:
- How to grab extent buffer
Now we use find_extent_buffer_nospinlock() other than using
page::private.
All other different han
For subpage metadata, we don't use page locking at all.
So just skip the page locking part for subpage.
All the remaining routine can be reused.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:18:16AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/3/9 下午9:33, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:39:09PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Since commit 90020a760584 ("btrfs-progs: mkfs: refactor how we handle
> >> sectorsize override") we have extra warning messa
On 10/03/2021 08:09, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
> On Wed 2021-03-10 (07:59), Hugo Mills wrote:
>
>>> On tsmsrvj I have in /etc/exports:
>>>
>>> /data/fex tsmsrvi(rw,async,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash)
>>>
>>> This is a btrfs subvolume with snapshots:
>>>
>>> root@tsmsrvj:~# btrfs subvolume lis
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:24 PM Eryu Guan wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 03:07:43PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 2:41 PM Eryu Guan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 05:01:18PM +, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > From: Filipe Manana
> > > >
> > > > Test
Dear devs,
after my root partiton was full, i deleted the last monthly snapshots. however,
no memory was freed.
so far rebalancing helped:
btrfs balance start -v -musage=0 /
btrfs balance start -v -dusage=0 /
i have deleted all snapshots, but no memory is being freed this time.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 7:23 PM Shiyang Ruan wrote:
>
> This patchset is attempt to add CoW support for fsdax, and take XFS,
> which has both reflink and fsdax feature, as an example.
>
> Changes from V1:
> - Factor some helper functions to simplify dax fault code
> - Introduce iomap_apply2() fo
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> Btrfs at the same time? It seems weird to me that adding a feature
btrfs doesn't support DAX. only ext2, ext4, XFS and FUSE have DAX support.
If you think about
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:02 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> > Btrfs at the same time? It seems weird to me that adding a feature
>
> btrfs doesn't support DAX. on
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:36:06AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:02 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> > > Btrfs at the same time? It seem
On 10/03/2021 12:07, telsch wrote:
> Dear devs,
>
> after my root partiton was full, i deleted the last monthly snapshots.
> however, no memory was freed.
> so far rebalancing helped:
>
> btrfs balance start -v -musage=0 /
> btrfs balance start -v -dusage=0 /
>
> i have deleted all
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:24:40PM +0100, Heiko Becker wrote:
> Hard-coding the pkg-config executable might result in build errors
> on system and cross environments that have prefixed toolchains. The
> PKG_CONFIG variable already holds the proper one and is already used
> in a few other places.
>
On 13:02 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> > Btrfs at the same time? It seems weird to me that adding a feature
>
> btrfs doesn't support DAX. only ext2, ext4, XFS
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:21:59AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> On 13:02 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> > > Btrfs at the same time? It seems weird to me
> Don't forget that, in general, deleting a snapshot does nothing - if the
> original files are still there (or any other snapshots of the same files
> are still there). In my experience, if you *really* need space urgently
> you are best of starting with deleting some big files *and* all the
> sna
On Wed 2021-03-10 (09:35), Graham Cobb wrote:
> >>> root@tsmsrvj:~# find /data/fex | wc -l
> >>> 489887
> >
> >>I can't remember if this is why, but I've had to put a distinct
> >> fsid field in each separate subvolume being exported:
> >>
> >> /srv/nfs/home -rw,async,fsid=0x1730,no_subtr
On 2021-03-10 10:49 a.m., telsch wrote:
>
> Any other ideas to fix this?
>
We can check that there are, in fact, no unexpected subvolumes.
btrfs sub list /
In particular, I wonder if you have subvolumes/snapshots hidden behind
the mounted subvolume.
Also, I don't think it's really the case
On 14:26 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:21:59AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > On 13:02 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn't wired up to
> > >
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:07:47PM +0100, telsch wrote:
> Dear devs,
>
> after my root partiton was full, i deleted the last monthly snapshots.
> however, no memory was freed.
> so far rebalancing helped:
>
> btrfs balance start -v -musage=0 /
> btrfs balance start -v -dusage=0 /
>
> We can check that there are, in fact, no unexpected subvolumes.
>
> btrfs sub list /
>
> In particular, I wonder if you have subvolumes/snapshots hidden behind
> the mounted subvolume.
>
> Also, I don't think it's really the case here with only 16GB reported by
> du,, but do you have any large,
Hi,
I have this in a btrfs directory. Linux kernel 5.10.16, no errors in dmesg, no
scrub errors:
ls -lh
total 19G
-rwxr-x--- 1 root root 783 Mar 10 14:56 disk_config.dat
-rwxr-x--- 1 root root 783 Mar 10 14:56 disk_config.dat
-rwxr-x--- 1 root root 783 Mar 10 14:56 dis
From: Ulli Horlacher -- Sent: 2021-03-10 -
16:55
> On Wed 2021-03-10 (09:35), Graham Cobb wrote:
>
>> >>> root@tsmsrvj:~# find /data/fex | wc -l
>> >>> 489887
>> >
>> >>I can't remember if this is why, but I've had to put a distinct
>> >> fsid field in each separate subvolume
On Wed 2021-03-10 (18:29), Forza wrote:
> Did you try the fsid on the export?
Yes:
root@tsmsrvj:/etc# grep tsm exports
/data/fex tsmsrvi(rw,async,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash,fsid=0x0011)
root@tsmsrvj:/etc# exportfs -va
exporting fex.rus.uni-stuttgart.de:/data/fex
exporting tsmsrvi.ru
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 12:45:08PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:08 AM Zygo Blaxell
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 04:24:19PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 3:53 PM Zygo Blaxell
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hit this twice so far, while
Hi,
How about a review of this test case or suggest any better ideas?
If we are ok with this, I will be adding 2 other types of workloads
that we need to test read policies.
Thanks, Anand
On 22/2/21 10:48 pm, Anand Jain wrote:
This test case runs fio for raid1/10/1c3/1c4 profiles and all
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:21:34 -0800 ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> Previously this was submitted to convert to zero_user()[1]. zero_user() is
> not
> the same as memzero_user() and in fact some zero_user() calls may be better
> off
> as memzero_user(). Regardless it was incorrect to convert btrfs
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:27 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:21:59AM -0600, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > On 13:02 10/03, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 07:30:41AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why this isn'
On Wed 2021-03-10 (08:46), Ulli Horlacher wrote:
> When I try to access a btrfs filesystem via nfs, I get the error:
>
> root@tsmsrvi:~# mount tsmsrvj:/data/fex /nfs/tsmsrvj/fex
> root@tsmsrvi:~# time find /nfs/tsmsrvj/fex | wc -l
> find: File system loop detected; '/nfs/tsmsrvj/fex/spool' is part
45 matches
Mail list logo
