2008/7/31 Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 14:14 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:52 +0800, Yan Zheng wrote:
Hello,
The memory reclaiming issue happens when snapshot exists. In that
case, some cache entries may not be used during old snapshot
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 00:44 +0200, Marcel Runte wrote:
Hello,
I fiddled around with btrfs this evening and need some further insight into
this error.
During compilation this error occurs:
/home/runtema/btrfs_build/kernel-9da425337329/file.c: In Funktion
»btrfs_file_write«:
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:46 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Not sure if this is just an 8-way, multithreaded test, but my run of the
latest unstable tree ground to a halt with lock messages (see the
attached, compressed log for details ;-)) On the good news side, it did
run for around 8 hours
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:46 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Not sure if this is just an 8-way, multithreaded test, but my run of the
latest unstable tree ground to a halt with lock messages (see the
attached, compressed log for details ;-)) On the good news side, it did
run for around 8 hours
Chris Mason asked Marcel Runte:
But, recent versions of Btrfs should be doing the right thing. Which
version are you running?
Hi Chris,
I pulled it from here: http://www.kernel.org/hg/index.cgi/btrfs/kernel/ with
latest changeset:
Yan Zheng wrote Marcel:
This is a known issue caused by AppArmor. See following URL.
http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/btrfs-devel/2008-February/000491.html
Regards
YZ
YZ,
patch described in your link is included in
http://www.kernel.org/hg/index.cgi/btrfs/kernel/rev/9da425337329, which
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:43 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 22:13 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
[ rcu page cache ]
For btrfs's usage, it should be safe with a simple rcu_read_lock(), if
the return is referenced safely.
This btrfs code is basically a
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 20:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:43 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 22:13 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
[ rcu page cache ]
For btrfs's usage, it should be safe with a simple rcu_read_lock(), if
the return is
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:37 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
If you can reliably reproduce this, please try with the spin locks
instead of rcu read locks. What were you doing at the time?
Just copying a bunch of files into it so that I could test NFS
readdirplus with the following:
2008/8/1 Marcel Runte [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
patch described in your link is included in
http://www.kernel.org/hg/index.cgi/btrfs/kernel/rev/9da425337329, which I
used for compilation. Even putting an alias like alias gcc = 'gcc
-DREMOVE_SUID_PATH' or doing a CC='gcc -DREMOVE_SUID_PATH';
10 matches
Mail list logo
