Re: kernel BUG at /linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833!

dmesg: [ 3000.613310] INFO: task btrfs-transacti:11423 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 3000.613314] Tainted: G U 4.2.3-040203-generic #201510030832 [ 3000.613314] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 3000.613315] btrfs-transacti D

Re: kernel BUG at /linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833!

I also get some of this syslog entrys: [ 3840.616538] INFO: task btrfs-transacti:11423 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 3840.616541] Tainted: G U 4.2.3-040203-generic #201510030832 [ 3840.616542] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [

Re: kernel BUG at /linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833!

Peter Becker posted on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:48:31 +0200 as excerpted: > btrfs balance start -m /media/RAID > > complete with out any error but the resulte of device usage is confusing > me. > Metadata on sdb and sdc are 2 GiB, but on sdd (the new added device) > is 4 GiB. And the 2. one that's

Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] vfs: Add vfs_copy_file_range() support for pagecache copies

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:52PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > This allows us to have an in-kernel copy mechanism that avoids frequent > switches between kernel and user space. This is especially useful so > NFSD can support server-side copies. > > I make pagecache copies configurable by

Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] btrfs: btrfs_copy_file_range() only supports reflinks

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:53PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > Reject copies that don't have the COPY_FR_REFLINK flag set. I think a reflink actually is a perfectly valid copy, and I don't buy the duplicate arguments in earlier threads. We really need to think more in terms of how this

Re: btrfs says no errors, but booting gives lots of errors

Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > covici posted on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:08:16 -0400 as excerpted: > > > cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > > >> Lionel Bouton wrote: > >> > >> > Le 10/10/2015 18:55, cov...@ccs.covici.com a écrit : > >> > > [...] > >> > > But do you

Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] vfs: Copy should use file_out rather than file_in

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:50PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > The way to think about this is that the destination filesystem reads the > data from the source file and processes it accordingly. This is > especially important to avoid an infinate loop when doing a "server to > server" copy on

Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] vfs: Remove copy_file_range mountpoint checks

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:26:51PM -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: > I still want to do an in-kernel copy even if the files are on different > mountpoints, and NFS has a "server to server" copy that expects two > files on different mountpoints. Let's have individual filesystems > implement this

Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] vfs: Copy shouldn't forbid ranges inside the same file

Needs to be folded. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] vfs: Copy should check len after file open mode

Should be folded into patch 1. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: btrfs says no errors, but booting gives lots of errors

covici posted on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 19:08:16 -0400 as excerpted: > cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > >> Lionel Bouton wrote: >> >> > Le 10/10/2015 18:55, cov...@ccs.covici.com a écrit : >> > > [...] >> > > But do you folks have any idea about my original question, this >> >

[PATCH 1/7] btrfs: introduce _in_rcu variants of message printing functions

Due to the missing variants there are messages that lack the information printed by btrfs_info etc helpers. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 29 + 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h

[PATCH 6/7] btrfs: switch message printers to ratelimited variants

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 21 ++--- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 14 -- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c| 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 10 +- fs/btrfs/inode.c| 7 ++-

[PATCH 7/7] btrfs: switch more printks to our helpers

Convert the simple cases, not all functions provide a way to reach the fs_info. Also skipped debugging messages (print-tree, integrity checker and pr_debug) and messages that are printed from possibly unfinished mount. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 12

[PATCH 2/7] btrfs: switch message printers to _in_rcu variants

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 16 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 2 +- fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 14 +++--- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 18 +- 5 files changed, 27

[PATCH 4/7] btrfs: switch message printers to ratelimited _in_rcu variants

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/scrub.c | 20 ++-- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++-- 4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c

[PATCH 5/7] btrfs: introduce ratelimited variants of message printing functions

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 21 + 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h index 9c0fd901edbe..bca42c5733a1 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h @@ -4075,6 +4075,23 @@ void

[PULL][PATCH 0/7] Updates in message printers and formatters

Hi, this was inspired by recent Anand's post to change the printing format of the btrfs_err etc. helpers to include UUID. We do not use the helpers everywhere, so I've introduced all the missing variants that require eg printing the rcu_string (device name), are ratelimited or are both

[PATCH 3/7] btrfs: introduce ratelimited _in_rcu variants of message printing functions

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 38 ++ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h index 88acdffbe384..9c0fd901edbe 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h @@ -4057,16

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: clear bio reference after submit_one_bio()

Hi Naota, What happens if btrfs_bio_alloc() in submit_extent_page fails? Then we return -ENOMEM to the caller, but we do not set *bio_ret to NULL. And if *bio_ret was non-NULL upon entry into submit_extent_page, then we had submitted this bio before getting to btrfs_bio_alloc(). So should

filesystem goes ro trying to balance. "cpu stuck"

Kernel 4.2.2-1.el7.elrepo btrfs-progs v4.2.1 I'm attempting to convert a filesystem from raid6 to raid10. I didn't have any functional problems with it, but performance is abysmal compared to basically the same arrangement in raid10 so I thought I'd just get away from raid56 for a while (I also

[PATCH 4/6] btrfs: add comments to barriers before waitqueue_active

Reduce number of undocumented barriers out there. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/compression.c | 3 +++ fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 +-- fs/btrfs/locking.c | 3 +++ fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 6 ++ fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 3 +++ 5 files changed, 16

[PATCH 1/6] btrfs: remove waitqueue_active check from btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked

Normally the waitqueue_active would need a barrier, but this is not necessary here because it's not a performance sensitive context and we can call wake_up directly. Suggested-by: Chris Mason Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 3 +-- 1 file

[PATCH 3/6] btrfs: comment waitqueue_active implied by locks

Suggested-by: Chris Mason Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 6 +- fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 6 ++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c index fcf7265ca46f..1a33d3eb36de 100644

[PATCH 6/6] btrfs: comment the rest of implicit barriers before waitqueue_active

There are atomic operations that imply the barrier for waitqueue_active mixed in an if-condition. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 4 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 3 +++ fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +++ fs/btrfs/locking.c | 9 +

[PATCH 2/6] btrfs: add barrier for waitqueue_active in clear_btree_io_tree

waitqueue_active should be preceded by a barrier, in this function we don't need to call it all the time. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c index

[PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2)

Hi, I've updated the main patch according to your comments in https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg42551.html though with one exception, the barrier in btrfs_bio_counter_sub which seems to be in performance sensitive context but I did not find a good way how determine

[PATCH 5/6] btrfs: remove extra barrier before waitqueue_active

Removing barriers is scary, but a call to atomic_dec_and_test implies a barrier, so we don't need to issue another one. Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 8 ++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c

BTRFS with 8TB SMR drives

Hi guys, just added a new Seagate Archive 8TB drive to my BTRFS volume and I'm getting a tonne of errors when balancing or scrubbing. A short smartctl test reports fine, running a long one now. Will also run seatools from a bootable DOS USB while at work today. Running latest firmware on my

Re: kernel BUG at /linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833!

the output of btrfs check --readonly /dev/sdb http://pastebin.com/UxkeVd7Y many entrys with "extent buffer leak" the output of btrfs-show-super -i0 /dev/sd[bcd] && btrfs-show-super -i1 /dev/sd[bcd] && btrfs-show-super -i2 /dev/sd[bcd] http://pastebin.com/zs7B8827

Re: kernel BUG at /linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833!

Ok, that's what i expected. :) if it will work :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: kernel BUG at /linux/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:1833!

Hello Peter, I have the same problem you have, as reported ~1 month ago on this mailing-list. My setup is 2 disks, and I tried balancing after adding a third one, in a raid5 configuration. I also have some "extent buffer leak" in my btrfsck, but it's hard to say if it can be the cause. If

Re: BTRFS with 8TB SMR drives

Warren Hughes warrenhughes.net> writes: > > Hi guys, just added a new Seagate Archive 8TB drive to my BTRFS volume > and I'm getting a tonne of errors when balancing or scrubbing. > > A short smartctl test reports fine, running a long one now. Will also > run seatools from a bootable DOS USB

Re: BTRFS with 8TB SMR drives

Thanks Kristan, a scrub would be great; mine appeared to be working fine until the scrub (although I hadn't yet run a balance on it so who knows). I might move my 8TB onto the motherboard controller and see if the situation improves. Will update here tonight. Cheers, W. On 12 October 2015 at

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: remove empty header file extent-tree.h

Ping? Any comment? Thanks, Qu Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/09/29 09:51 +0800: Hi Chris, Would you please merge this patch? The empty header is introduced by my qgroup accounting rework, and the cleanup patch is missed in 4.2. Thanks, Qu Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/07/03 09:17 +0800: The empty

Re: BTRFS with 8TB SMR drives

Hopefully this is of use - its a beast; 34MB when uncompressed https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74Kimpwe3nYYUZ2YTMtQXB4V1U/view?usp=sharing On 12 October 2015 at 14:43, Chris Murphy wrote: > Is it possible to get a complete dmesg included in the thread, or if > it's

Re: BTRFS with 8TB SMR drives

more info for anyone interested: [wsh@cloud ~]$ sudo btrfs fi df /mnt/media Data, RAID1: total=13.64TiB, used=13.61TiB System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=2.22MiB Metadata, RAID1: total=16.00GiB, used=15.10GiB GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00B [wsh@cloud ~]$ sudo btrfs fi sh

Re: BTRFS with 8TB SMR drives

Is it possible to get a complete dmesg included in the thread, or if it's too big attach it to a bug report? I'm curious if there are any libata messages, as well as the specific Btrfs messages. --- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the

Questions about FIEMAP

Hello everyone, After googled a bit, I got information that btrfs supports FIEMAP (as "cp" needs it), but it's not valid for "write" operation. I guess we cannot write to block device directly after get block list using FIEMAP. This is because: 1. COW feature of btrfs (but this can be

Re: filesystem goes ro trying to balance. "cpu stuck"

Donald Pearson posted on Sun, 11 Oct 2015 11:46:14 -0500 as excerpted: > Kernel 4.2.2-1.el7.elrepo btrfs-progs v4.2.1 > > I'm attempting to convert a filesystem from raid6 to raid10. I didn't > have any functional problems with it, but performance is abysmal > compared to basically the same

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: Add all missing close_ctree and btrfs_close_all_devices

This patch add all missing close_ctree and btrfs_close_all_devices to several tools in btrfs progs, to avoid memory leak. Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei --- btrfs-calc-size.c| 1 + btrfs-debug-tree.c | 5 - btrfs-find-root.c| 1 + btrfs-map-logical.c | 1 +