Hallo! I was running bonnie to compare btrfs to alternatives, see where it is in terms of relative performance. It looks good (but has very high CPU usage, is that expected?), but then I get a warning and later an oops. This is using two >9GB partitions, and bonnie running with 3GB and later 9GB. kernel: Btrfs v0.16+417d87e57364 loaded Here begins the first run, mkfs -d raid0 kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 7 /dev/sda2 kernel: device label test devid 2 transid 7 /dev/sdb2 kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 12 /dev/sda2 kernel: space info full 9 but it completes bonnie. Here begins the second run, mkfs -d raid1 kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 7 /dev/sda2 kernel: device label test devid 2 transid 7 /dev/sdb2 kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 12 /dev/sda2 kernel: space info full 17 kernel: Unable to find block group for 9183821824 kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel: WARNING: at /usr/local/src/btrfs/extent-tree.c:300 find_search_start+0x2a9/0x2f0 [btrfs]() kernel: Modules linked in: btrfs crc32c libcrc32c snd_hda_intel piix snd_pcm snd_timer ide_core snd_page_alloc snd_hwdep snd soundcore kernel: Pid: 2246, comm: bonnie Not tainted 2.6.26.3 #9 kernel: kernel: Call Trace: kernel: [<ffffffff8022e414>] warn_on_slowpath+0x64/0xc0 kernel: [<ffffffff804dc725>] printk+0x4e/0x59 kernel: [<ffffffffa00f708d>] :btrfs:__etree_search+0x8d/0x110 kernel: [<ffffffffa00f7a98>] :btrfs:find_first_extent_bit+0x58/0xe0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00d4618>] :btrfs:btrfs_lookup_block_group+0x38/0x80 kernel: [<ffffffffa00d4cd6>] :btrfs:btrfs_lookup_first_block_group+0x36/0x70 kernel: [<ffffffffa00d5369>] :btrfs:find_search_start+0x2a9/0x2f0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00d6693>] :btrfs:find_free_extent+0x333/0x7a0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00d6c6b>] :btrfs:__btrfs_reserve_extent+0x16b/0x290 kernel: [<ffffffffa00d6e00>] :btrfs:btrfs_reserve_extent+0x70/0xa0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00e3b70>] :btrfs:cow_file_range+0x130/0x270 kernel: [<ffffffffa00e3e0a>] :btrfs:run_delalloc_range+0x15a/0x2d0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00fb1e0>] :btrfs:__extent_writepage+0x140/0x740 kernel: [<ffffffff802644a9>] write_cache_pages+0x229/0x3c0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00fb0a0>] :btrfs:__extent_writepage+0x0/0x740 kernel: [<ffffffffa00f830f>] :btrfs:extent_writepages+0x2f/0x50 kernel: [<ffffffffa00e4de0>] :btrfs:btrfs_get_extent+0x0/0x780 kernel: [<ffffffff80244288>] wake_up_bit+0x18/0x40 kernel: [<ffffffff80264690>] do_writepages+0x20/0x40 kernel: [<ffffffff802acca0>] __writeback_single_inode+0xa0/0x470 kernel: [<ffffffffa00f7b8c>] :btrfs:merge_state+0x6c/0x100 kernel: [<ffffffff802ad5a0>] sync_sb_inodes+0x2f0/0x470 kernel: [<ffffffff802ad982>] writeback_inodes+0x52/0xf0 kernel: [<ffffffff8026501e>] balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr+0x24e/0x350 kernel: [<ffffffffa00eb048>] :btrfs:btrfs_file_write+0x6f8/0x9e0 kernel: [<ffffffffa00ea950>] :btrfs:btrfs_file_write+0x0/0x9e0 kernel: [<ffffffff8028aa0b>] vfs_write+0xcb/0x170 kernel: [<ffffffff8028b270>] fget_light+0x30/0xb0 kernel: [<ffffffff8028abb3>] sys_write+0x53/0xa0 kernel: [<ffffffff8020b66b>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80 kernel: kernel: ---[ end trace ebf771890be803e6 ]--- kernel: Unable to find block group for 9183821824 kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel: WARNING: at /usr/local/src/btrfs/extent-tree.c:300 find_search_start+0x2a9/0x2f0 [btrfs]() kernel: Modules linked in: btrfs crc32c libcrc32c snd_hda_intel piix snd_pcm snd_timer ide_core snd_page_alloc snd_hwdep snd soundcore kernel: Pid: 2246, comm: bonnie Tainted: G W 2.6.26.3 #9 kernel: kernel: Call Trace: kernel: [<ffffffff8022e414>] warn_on_slowpath+0x64/0xc0 At this point df says there is 6GB of ~18.5 GB in use. Frank -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:18 +0100, Frank Kingswood wrote:> Hallo! > > I was running bonnie to compare btrfs to alternatives, see where it is > in terms of relative performance. It looks good (but has very high CPU > usage, is that expected?), but then I get a warning and later an oops. > > This is using two >9GB partitions, and bonnie running with 3GB and later > 9GB. > > kernel: Btrfs v0.16+417d87e57364 loaded > > Here begins the first run, mkfs -d raid0 > > kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 7 /dev/sda2 > kernel: device label test devid 2 transid 7 /dev/sdb2 > kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 12 /dev/sda2 > kernel: space info full 9 > > but it completes bonnie. > > Here begins the second run, mkfs -d raid1 > > kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 7 /dev/sda2 > kernel: device label test devid 2 transid 7 /dev/sdb2 > kernel: device label test devid 1 transid 12 /dev/sda2 > kernel: space info full 17 > kernel: Unable to find block group for 9183821824Well, you''re hitting a variant of the enospc code. My guess is that you''ve filled up the volume to the point where everything is allocated as a data extent, then deleted the file to make room then tried run #2. How big is the volume and how big are the files created by each run? -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html