18.09.2018 22:11, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
> On 2018-09-18 14:38, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 18.09.2018 21:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
>>> On 2018-09-18 14:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
>
Chris Murphy posted on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 13:34:14 -0600 as excerpted:
> I've run into some issue where grub2-mkconfig and grubby, can change the
> grub.cfg, and then do a really fast reboot without cleanly unmounting
> the volume - and what happens? Can't boot. The bootloader can't do log
> replay
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:06:46PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:53:06PM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:38:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 01:10:45AM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at
On 2018/9/19 上午8:35, sunny.s.zhang wrote:
>
> 在 2018年09月19日 08:05, Qu Wenruo 写道:
>>
>> On 2018/9/18 上午8:28, sunny.s.zhang wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> My OS(4.1.12) panic in kmem_cache_alloc, which is called by
>>> btrfs_get_or_create_delayed_node.
>> Any reproducer?
>>
>> Anyway we need a
在 2018年09月19日 08:05, Qu Wenruo 写道:
On 2018/9/18 上午8:28, sunny.s.zhang wrote:
Hi All,
My OS(4.1.12) panic in kmem_cache_alloc, which is called by
btrfs_get_or_create_delayed_node.
Any reproducer?
Anyway we need a reproducer as a testcase.
I have had a try, but could not reproduce yet.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:58:03PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We keep track of dirty bg's as a reservation in the delayed_refs_rsv, so
> when we abort and we cleanup those dirty bgs we need to drop their
> reservation so we don't have accounting issues and lots of scary
> messages on umount.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:58:04PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> When we insert the file extent once the ordered extent completes we free
> the reserved extent reservation as it'll have been migrated to the
> bytes_used counter. However if we error out after this step we'll still
> clear the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:57:48PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> With severe fragmentation we can end up with our inode rsv size being
> huge during writeout, which would cause us to need to make very large
> metadata reservations. However we may not actually need that much once
> writeout is
On 2018/9/18 上午8:28, sunny.s.zhang wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My OS(4.1.12) panic in kmem_cache_alloc, which is called by
> btrfs_get_or_create_delayed_node.
Any reproducer?
Anyway we need a reproducer as a testcase.
The code looks
>
> I found that the freelist of the slub is wrong.
>
> crash>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:57:47PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Delayed iputs means we can have final iputs of deleted inodes in the
> queue, which could potentially generate a lot of pinned space that could
> be free'd. So before we decide to commit the transaction for ENOPSC
> reasons, run the
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:57:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> If we use up our block group before allocating a new one we'll easily
> get a max_extent_size that's set really really low, which will result in
> a lot of fragmentation. We need to make sure we're resetting the
> max_extent_size when
Hi Duncan,
Thank you for your advice. I understand what you mean. But i have
reviewed the latest btrfs code, and i think the issue is exist still.
At 71 line, if the function of btrfs_get_delayed_node run over this
line, then switch to other process, which run over the 1282 and release
the
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Does_grub_support_btrfs.3F
>
> Does anyone know if this is still a problem on Btrfs if grubenv has
> xattr +C set? In which case it should be possible to overwrite and
> there's no csums that are
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> I think it's a problem, and near as I can tell it'll be a problem for
>> all kinds of complex storage. I don't see how the bootloader itself
>> can do an overwrite onto raid5 or raid6.
>
>
>> That's certainly supported by GRUB for
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 18.09.2018 21:57, Chris Murphy пишет:
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
>> wrote:
>>> 18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
>>
The patches aren't upstream yet? Will they be?
>>>
>>> I do not know.
On 18/09/2018 20.52, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
> wrote:
>> On 18/09/2018 06.21, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> b. The bootloader code, would have to have sophisticated enough Btrfs
>>> knowledge to know if the grubenv has been reflinked or snapshot,
>>>
On 2018-09-18 15:00, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
It actually is independent of /boot already. I've got it running just fine
on my laptop off of the EFI system partition (which is independent of my
/boot partition), and thus have no issues
On 2018-09-18 14:57, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
The patches aren't upstream yet? Will they be?
I do not know. Personally I think much easier is to make grub location
independent of /boot, allowing
On 2018-09-18 14:38, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.09.2018 21:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
On 2018-09-18 14:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
wrote:
18.09.2018 07:21, Chris Murphy пишет:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn
wrote:
> It actually is independent of /boot already. I've got it running just fine
> on my laptop off of the EFI system partition (which is independent of my
> /boot partition), and thus have no issues with handling of the grubenv file.
>
18.09.2018 21:57, Chris Murphy пишет:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
> wrote:
>> 18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
>
>>> The patches aren't upstream yet? Will they be?
>>>
>>
>> I do not know. Personally I think much easier is to make grub location
>> independent of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
>> The patches aren't upstream yet? Will they be?
>>
>
> I do not know. Personally I think much easier is to make grub location
> independent of /boot, allowing grub be installed in separate
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli
wrote:
> On 18/09/2018 06.21, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> b. The bootloader code, would have to have sophisticated enough Btrfs
>> knowledge to know if the grubenv has been reflinked or snapshot,
>> because even if +C, it may not be valid to
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 06:28:37PM +, Gervais, Francois wrote:
> > No. It is already possible (by setting received UUID); it should not be
> made too open to easy abuse.
>
>
> Do you mean edit the UUID in the byte stream before btrfs receive?
No, there's an ioctl to change the received
18.09.2018 21:28, Gervais, Francois пишет:
>> No. It is already possible (by setting received UUID); it should not be
> made too open to easy abuse.
>
>
> Do you mean edit the UUID in the byte stream before btrfs receive?
>
No, I mean setting received UUID on subvolume. Unfortunately, it is
18.09.2018 21:25, Austin S. Hemmelgarn пишет:
> On 2018-09-18 14:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
>>> wrote:
18.09.2018 07:21, Chris Murphy пишет:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Chris Murphy
On 09/18/2018 08:10 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2018, 14:50:04 CEST schrieb Hans van Kranenburg:
>> The last example, where you make a subvolume and move everything into
>> it, will not do what you want. Since a subvolume is a separate new
>> directoty/file hierarchy, mv
> No. It is already possible (by setting received UUID); it should not be
made too open to easy abuse.
Do you mean edit the UUID in the byte stream before btrfs receive?
On 2018-09-18 14:16, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
18.09.2018 07:21, Chris Murphy пишет:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
18.09.2018 08:37, Chris Murphy пишет:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:24 PM, Andrei Borzenkov
> wrote:
>> 18.09.2018 07:21, Chris Murphy пишет:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:44 PM, Chris Murphy
>>> wrote:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Does_grub_support_btrfs.3F
Does
18.09.2018 20:56, Gervais, Francois пишет:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to apply a btrfs send diff (done through -p) to another subvolume
> with the same content as the proper parent but with a different uuid.
>
> I looked through btrfs receive and I get the feeling that this is not
> possible
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2018, 14:50:04 CEST schrieb Hans van Kranenburg:
> The last example, where you make a subvolume and move everything into
> it, will not do what you want. Since a subvolume is a separate new
> directoty/file hierarchy, mv will turn into a cp and rm operation
> (without
Hi,
I'm trying to apply a btrfs send diff (done through -p) to another subvolume
with the same content as the proper parent but with a different uuid.
I looked through btrfs receive and I get the feeling that this is not possible
right now.
I'm thinking of adding a -p option to btrfs
On 18/09/2018 06.21, Chris Murphy wrote:
> b. The bootloader code, would have to have sophisticated enough Btrfs
> knowledge to know if the grubenv has been reflinked or snapshot,
> because even if +C, it may not be valid to overwrite, and COW must
> still happen, and there's no way the code in
From: Timofey Titovets
Currently btrfs raid1/10 balancer bаlance requests to mirrors,
based on pid % num of mirrors.
Make logic understood:
- if one of underline devices are non rotational
- Queue leght to underline devices
By default try use pid % num_mirrors guessing, but:
- If one of
From: Timofey Titovets
Both, defrag ioctl and autodefrag - call btrfs_defrag_file()
for file defragmentation.
Kernel default target extent size - 256KiB.
Btrfs progs default - 32MiB.
Both bigger then maximum size of compressed extent - 128KiB.
That lead to rewrite all compressed data on
Add Junxiao
在 2018年09月18日 13:05, Duncan 写道:
sunny.s.zhang posted on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:28:14 +0800 as excerpted:
My OS(4.1.12) panic in kmem_cache_alloc, which is called by
btrfs_get_or_create_delayed_node.
I found that the freelist of the slub is wrong.
[Not a dev, just a btrfs list
Total of three conditions are tested. One for short name, one with
name length 255, the last one with more than 255.
This case should pass after commit
'btrfs-progs: change filename limit to 255 when creating subvolume'.
Signed-off-by: Su Yanjun
---
.../033-filename-length-limit/test.sh
On 2018/9/18 下午4:01, Su Yue wrote:
>
>
> On 9/18/18 1:32 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018/9/17 下午9:24, Su Yue wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018/9/17 8:53 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018/9/17 下午3:28, Su Yue wrote:
> After call of check_inode_item(), path may point to the last
On 9/18/18 1:32 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018/9/17 下午9:24, Su Yue wrote:
On 2018/9/17 8:53 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
On 2018/9/17 下午3:28, Su Yue wrote:
After call of check_inode_item(), path may point to the last unchecked
slot of the leaf. The outer walk_up_tree() always treats the
40 matches
Mail list logo
