Re: [PATCH v13 00/15] Btrfs In-band De-duplication

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 03:12:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This patchset can be fetched from github: > https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git wang_dedupe_20160907 > > This version is just another small update, rebased to David's > for-next-20160906 branch. > > This updates only includes one

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ioctl_xfs_ioc_getfsmap.2: document XFS_IOC_GETFSMAP ioctl

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:07:16PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:38:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > I recall for FIEMAP that some filesystems may not have files aligned > > > > to sector

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix a possible umount deadlock

On 09/09/2016 08:53 PM, David Sterba wrote: On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:31:04PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices) { struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp; + static LIST_HEAD(pending_put); Why is it static? sorry my

[PATCH v2] btrfs: fix a possible umount deadlock

btrfs_show_devname() is using the device_list_mutex, sometimes a call to blkdev_put() leads vfs calling into this func. So call blkdev_put() outside of device_list_mutex, as of now. [ 983.284212] == [ 983.290401] [ INFO: possible circular

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

moparisthebest posted on Fri, 09 Sep 2016 15:23:13 -0400 as excerpted: > On 09/09/2016 02:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit >>> working yesterday. My array was in

btrfstune -x -> extent-tree.c:2688: btrfs_reserve_extent: Assertion `ret` failed.

Hi, While trying to enable skinny metadata on a filesystem, I got this error (after minutes of reading from disk by the program): -# btrfstune -x /dev/xvdb extent-tree.c:2688: btrfs_reserve_extent: Assertion `ret` failed. btrfstune[0x410ef6] btrfstune[0x410f1d]

Re: segfault btrfs scrub

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 02:41:45PM +0200, Jan Koester wrote: > >   >   > Hi, > > i got from btrfs scrub command segfault. I use btrfs tools 4.7.2. >   > root@dibsi:/home/jan# btrfs scrub status /local > Speicherzugriffsfehler > root@dibsi:/home/jan# dmesg > [78294.556713] BTRFS error (device

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > The output from btrfs fi show and fi df both indicate that the filesystem is > essentially completely full. ?What am I missing? https://www.moparisthebest.com/btrfs/btrfsfishow.txt There's thousands of GiB's

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 09/09/2016 02:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit >> working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% >> remaining, when it hit an error and

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:32 PM, moparisthebest wrote: > This is indeed an lzo compressed system, it's always been mounted with > that option anyhow. > > btrfs check has been running for ~6 hours so far, I'll follow up with > output on that when it finishes. > > Hmm,

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:48 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-07 15:34, Chris Murphy wrote: > I like the idea of matching WWN as part of the check, with a couple of > caveats: > 1. We need to keep in mind that in some environments, this can be spoofed >

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-09 14:32, moparisthebest wrote: On 09/09/2016 01:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 2016-09-09 12:12, moparisthebest wrote: Hi, I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only [1]. btrfs fi show output [2], btrfs df output

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On 09/09/2016 01:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit >> working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% >> remaining,

Re: btrfs kernel oops on mount

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:12 AM, moparisthebest wrote: > Hi, > > I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit > working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% > remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only

[GIT PULL] Btrfs

Hi Linus, We have three fixes in my for-linus-4.8 branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus-4.8 I'm not proud of how long it took me to track down that one liner in btrfs_sync_log(), but the good news is the patches I was trying to blame for these

[PATCH 6/7][V2] Btrfs: kill the btree_inode

In order to more efficiently support sub-page blocksizes we need to stop allocating pages from pagecache for our metadata. Instead switch to using the account_metadata* counters for making sure we are keeping the system aware of how much dirty metadata we have, and use the ->free_cached_objects

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-09 12:33, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:08:18PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-07 14:07, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:06 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: This is an issue with any filesystem, Not really... any other

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-09 12:18, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:58:30AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote: Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies. On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote: Does

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:08:18PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-07 14:07, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 11:06 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >> This is an issue with any filesystem, > > Not really... any other filesystem I'd know (not sure about

btrfs kernel oops on mount

Hi, I'm hoping to get some help with mounting my btrfs array which quit working yesterday. My array was in the middle of a balance, about 50% remaining, when it hit an error and remounted itself read-only [1]. btrfs fi show output [2], btrfs df output [3]. I unmounted the array, and when I

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 07:58:30AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-06 13:20, Graham Cobb wrote: > > Thanks to Austin and Duncan for their replies. > > > > On 06/09/16 13:15, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >> On 2016-09-05 05:59, Graham Cobb wrote: > >>> Does the "path" argument of

Re: [PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: check: remove unused found_key variable in walk_down_tree()

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:22:17PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:20:59PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang > > --- > > cmds-check.c | 5 - > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/cmds-check.c

Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: check: make low memory mode support partially dropped snapshots

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:21:00PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > Signed-off-by: Wang Xiaoguang This + test image applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More

Re: [PATCH v13 00/15] Btrfs In-band De-duplication

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 03:12:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This patchset can be fetched from github: > https://github.com/adam900710/linux.git wang_dedupe_20160907 > > This version is just another small update, rebased to David's > for-next-20160906 branch. I've rebased it locally to the 4.9

Re: lockdep warning in btrfs in 4.8-rc3

On 09/08/2016 08:50 PM, Dave Jones wrote: On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 08:58:48AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On 09/08/2016 07:50 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > On 09/08/2016 01:48 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> Chris, > >> > >> with 4.8-rc3 I get the following on an s390 box: > >

Re: bug report about patch "Btrfs: kill the btree_inode"

On 09/09/2016 04:28 AM, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: hello, When we rebase dedupe patches to David's for-next-20160906 branch, we found below panic. By bisect, it seems that "Btrfs: kill the btree_inode" causing this bug, please check. Fstests case btrfs/060 can easily reproduce this bug. Oops

Re: Some help with the code.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:22:25PM +0100, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: > This is predominantly for maintainers: > > I've noticed that there is a lot of code for btrfs ... and after few > glimpses I've noticed that there are occurrences which beg for some > refactoring to make it less of a pain to

Re: State of the fuzzer

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:32:28PM +0200, Lukas Lueg wrote: > I'm currently fuzzing rev 2076992 and things start to slowly, slowly > quiet down. We will probably run out of steam at the end of the week > when a total of (roughly) half a billion BTRFS-images have passed by. > I will switch

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix a possible umount deadlock

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:31:04PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > static int __btrfs_close_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices) > { > struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp; > + static LIST_HEAD(pending_put); Why is it static? > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(_put); > > if

segfault btrfs scrub

    Hi, i got from btrfs scrub command segfault. I use btrfs tools 4.7.2.   root@dibsi:/home/jan# btrfs scrub status /local Speicherzugriffsfehler root@dibsi:/home/jan# dmesg [78294.556713] BTRFS error (device sda): bad tree block start 18427384836265136347 2304683610112 [78294.556956] BTRFS

Re: recent complete stalls of btrfs (4.7.0-rc2+) -- any advice?

e boot at http://www.onerussian.com/tmp/journal-20160909-oopses.log ) Sep 09 02:18:33 smaug kernel: [ cut here ] Sep 09 02:18:33 smaug kernel: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2189174 at lib/list_debug.c:33 __list_add+0x86/0xb0 Sep 09 02:18:33 smaug kernel: list_add corruption. prev

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: should block unused block groups deletion work when allocating data space

On 09/09/16 12:18, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:17:48 +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > >> cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call >> btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() >> to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may >> also result >> in

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: should block unused block groups deletion work when allocating data space

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:17:48 +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call > btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() > to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may also > result > in false ENOSPC error. With this v3 I can now no

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: should block unused block groups deletion work when allocating data space

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 04:25:15PM +0800, Wang Xiaoguang wrote: > hello David, > > This patch's v2 version in your for-next-20160906 branch is still wrong, > really sorry, > please revert it. Patch replaced with V3 in the upcoming for-next. > Stefan Priebe has reported another similar issue,

bug report about patch "Btrfs: kill the btree_inode"

hello, When we rebase dedupe patches to David's for-next-20160906 branch, we found below panic. By bisect, it seems that "Btrfs: kill the btree_inode" causing this bug, please check. Fstests case btrfs/060 can easily reproduce this bug. localhost login: [ 43.694734] BUG: unable to handle

Re: Another 4.8-rc locked splat: btrfs_close_devices()

Looks like we need to take time to clean up device_list_mutex, chunk_mutex, volume_mutex and rcu. As of now I have sent out, [PATCH] btrfs: fix a possible umount deadlock This has passed xfstests/btrfs. Thanks, Anand On 09/09/2016 08:38 AM, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for the report

Re: [PATCH 3/3] writeback: introduce super_operations->write_metadata

On Mon 22-08-16 13:35:02, Josef Bacik wrote: > Now that we have metadata counters in the VM, we need to provide a way to kick > writeback on dirty metadata. Introduce super_operations->write_metadata. > This > allows file systems to deal with writing back any dirty metadata we need based > on

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: should block unused block groups deletion work when allocating data space

hello David, This patch's v2 version in your for-next-20160906 branch is still wrong, really sorry, please revert it. Stefan Priebe has reported another similar issue, thought I didn't see it in my test environment. Now I choose to not call down_read(bg_delete_sem) for free space inode,

[PATCH] btrfs: fix a possible umount deadlock

btrfs_show_devname() is using the device_list_mutex, sometimes a call to blkdev_put() leads vfs calling into this func. So call blkdev_put() outside of device_list_mutex, as of now. [ 983.284212] == [ 983.290401] [ INFO: possible circular

[PATCH v3] btrfs: should block unused block groups deletion work when allocating data space

cleaner_kthread() may run at any time, in which it'll call btrfs_delete_unused_bgs() to delete unused block groups. Because this work is asynchronous, it may also result in false ENOSPC error. Please see below race window: CPU1 | CPU2

Re: [PATCH 2/3] writeback: allow for dirty metadata accounting

On Mon 22-08-16 13:35:01, Josef Bacik wrote: > Provide a mechanism for file systems to indicate how much dirty metadata they > are holding. This introduces a few things > > 1) Zone stats for dirty metadata, which is the same as the NR_FILE_DIRTY. > 2) WB stat for dirty metadata. This way we

[PATCH v3 3/3] ioctl_getfsmap.2: document the GETFSMAP ioctl

Document the new GETFSMAP ioctl that returns the physical layout of a (disk-based) filesystem. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong --- man2/ioctl_getfsmap.2 | 313 + 1 file changed, 313 insertions(+) create mode 100644

Re: [PATCH 3/3] ioctl_xfs_ioc_getfsmap.2: document XFS_IOC_GETFSMAP ioctl

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:38:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:09:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > I recall for FIEMAP that some filesystems may not have files aligned > > > to sector offsets, and we just used byte offsets. Storage like > > > NVDIMMs are