search for: btree_get_ext

...lock(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 bytenr, u32 blocksize, buf = btrfs_find_create_tree_block(root, bytenr, blocksize); if (!buf) return 0; - read_extent_buffer_pages(&BTRFS_I(btree_inode)->io_tree, + ret = read_extent_buffer_pages(&BTRFS_I(btree_inode)->io_tree, buf, 0, 0, btree_get_extent, 0); free_extent_buffer(buf); return ret; -- 1.6.5.2 -- 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

...x60 Jul 24 22:44:54 minerva kernel: [ 1532.886826] [btrfs:submit_one_bio+0xcf/0x120] :btrfs:submit_one_bio+0xcf/0x120 Jul 24 22:44:54 minerva kernel: [ 1532.886907] [btrfs:extent_write_full_page+0x9d/0xb0] :btrfs:extent_write_full_page+0x9d/0xb0 Jul 24 22:44:54 minerva kernel: [ 1532.886992] [btrfs:btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1f0] :btrfs:btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1f0 Jul 24 22:44:54 minerva kernel: [ 1532.887057] [btrfs:write_one_page+0x7b/0x430] write_one_page+0x7b/0x100 Jul 24 22:44:54 minerva kernel: [ 1532.887140] [btrfs:btrfs_write_and_wait_transaction+0xc6/0x130] :btrfs:btrfs_write_and_wait_transaction+0xc6/...

...[ 605.116488] [<ffffffff81255810>] ? end_bio_extent_readpage+0x0/0x210 > [ 605.116654] [<ffffffff81257241>] ? __extent_read_full_page+0x4e1/0x680 > [ 605.116820] [<ffffffff81255810>] ? end_bio_extent_readpage+0x0/0x210 > [ 605.116990] [<ffffffff8122c260>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1e0 > [ 605.117151] [<ffffffff81257660>] ? read_extent_buffer_pages+0x280/0x3c0 > [ 605.117320] [<ffffffff812d77ec>] ? radix_tree_insert+0x1bc/0x210 > [ 605.117488] [<ffffffff8122c260>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1e0 > [ 605.117651] [<ffffffff8122e945...

Hello, I have a 5.5TB Btrfs filesystem on top of a md-raid 5 device. Now if i run some file operations like find, i get these messages. kernel is 2.6.38.5-1 on arch linux May 5 14:15:12 mail kernel: [13559.089713] parent transid verify failed on 3062073683968 wanted 5181 found 5188 May 5 14:15:12 mail kernel: [13559.089834] parent transid verify failed on 3062073683968 wanted 5181 found 5188

...;>> tree_insert+0x86/0x1e0 > >>> Feb 14 02:05:52 lupus kernel: [   70.057859]  [<ffffffff81058c73>] > ? > >>> lock_timer_base.clone.22+0x33/0x70 > >>> Feb 14 02:05:52 lupus kernel: [   70.058004]  [<ffffffff81305060>] > ? > >>> btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1c0 > >>> Feb 14 02:05:52 lupus kernel: [   70.058097]  [<ffffffff81330b21>] > ? > >>> read_extent_buffer_pages+0x2d1/0x470 > >>> Feb 14 02:05:52 lupus kernel: [   70.058191]  [<ffffffff81305060>] > ? > >>> btree_get_extent+...

This series introduces a generic readahead interface for btrfs trees. The intention is to use it to speed up scrub in a first run, but balance is another hot candidate. In general, every tree walk could be accompanied by a readahead. Deletion of large files comes to mind, where the fetching of the csums takes most of the time. Also the initial build-ups of free-space-caches and

...@btrfs at Aug 3 05:09:33 ... kernel: [<e0dc16cd>] ? add_lru+0x22/0x69 [btrfs] Message from syslogd@btrfs at Aug 3 05:09:33 ... kernel: [<e0dacbf7>] ? btree_read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3a/0x8e [btrfs] Message from syslogd@btrfs at Aug 3 05:09:33 ... kernel: [<e0daf19b>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1cd [btrfs] Message from syslogd@btrfs at Aug 3 05:09:33 ... kernel: [<e0dad922>] ? read_tree_block+0x3e/0x52 [btrfs] Message from syslogd@btrfs at Aug 3 05:09:33 ... kernel: [<e0dae0a9>] ? open_ctree+0x6d4/0x825 [btrfs] Message from syslogd@btrfs at Aug 3 05:09:33 .....

This series introduces a generic readahead interface for btrfs trees. The intention is to use it to speed up scrub in a first run, but balance is another hot candidate. In general, every tree walk could be accompanied by a readahead. Deletion of large files comes to mind, where the fetching of the csums takes most of the time. Also the initial build-ups of free-space-caches and

...000000 cf53c3f0 00000fff [ 297.418161] Call Trace: [ 297.418161] [<c04a7ed6>] ? submit_extent_page+0xea/0x190 [ 297.418161] [<c04a9af4>] ? __extent_read_full_page+0x61d/0x6a0 [ 297.418161] [<c04aaf4a>] ? end_bio_extent_readpage+0x0/0x205 [ 297.418161] [<c0491123>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x16c [ 297.418161] [<c04a8467>] ? test_range_bit+0xd5/0xdf [ 297.418161] [<c04aa4c7>] ? read_extent_buffer_pages+0x274/0x3aa [ 297.418161] [<c07c6b0e>] ? _spin_unlock+0x2c/0x41 [ 297.418161] [<c04acda8>] ? alloc_extent_buffer+0x296/0x348 [ 297.418161] [<...

While testing raid-auto-repair patches I''m going to send out later, I just found the very last bug in my current scrub patch series: Changelog v4->v5: - fixed a deadlock when fixup is taking longer while scrub is about to end Original message follows: ------------------------ This patch set introduces two new features for scrub. They share the backref iteration code which is the

Hi, Recently, I made a btrfs to use. And I met slowness problem. Trying to diag it. I found this: 1. dd if=/dev/zero of=test count=1024 bs=1MB This is fast, at about 25MB/s, and reasonable iowait. 2. dd if=/dev/zero of=test count=1 bs=1GB This is pretty slow, at about 1.5MB/s, and 90%+ iowait, constantly. May I know why it works like this? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the

...Apr 30 14:25:46 btrfs kernel: [ 693.418946] [<ffffffff882e168f>] :btrfs:submit_one_bio+0xcf/0x120 Apr 30 14:25:46 btrfs kernel: [ 693.419029] [<ffffffff882e4d31>] :btrfs:read_extent_buffer_pages+0x2c1/0x3c0 Apr 30 14:25:46 btrfs kernel: [ 693.419111] [<ffffffff882cb900>] :btrfs:btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1d0 Apr 30 14:25:46 btrfs kernel: [ 693.419195] [<ffffffff882ca06d>] :btrfs:btree_read_extent_buffer_pages+0x4d/0x90 Apr 30 14:25:46 btrfs kernel: [ 693.419291] [<ffffffff882ca7ab>] :btrfs:read_tree_block+0x2b/0x50 Apr 30 14:25:46 btrfs kernel: [ 693.419370] [<ffffffff882...

...ber = cpu_to_le##bits(val); \ } diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index f633af8..00b80b7 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -373,6 +373,24 @@ static int btree_read_extent_buffer_pages(struct btrfs_root *root, WAIT_COMPLETE, btree_get_extent, mirror_num); if (!ret) { + /* + * I think that this is bad and should be moved + * into btree_readpage_end_io_hook(), but that + * it should apply to a single block at a time. + * That may be difficult and would make the + * function name a misnomer, but mostly I hate + *...

...t;c105eb70>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x60 Oct 8 02:40:43 (none) kernel: [<f89bde39>] read_extent_buffer_pages+0x489/0x4c0 [btrfs] Oct 8 02:40:43 (none) kernel: [<f8994c2b>] btree_read_extent_buffer_pages.clone.60+0x4b/0xb0 [btrfs] Oct 8 02:40:43 (none) kernel: [<f89939d0>] ? btree_get_extent+0x0/0x1c0 [btrfs] Oct 8 02:40:43 (none) kernel: [<f89959b7>] read_tree_block+0x47/0x60 [btrfs] Oct 8 02:40:43 (none) kernel: [<f897e185>] read_block_for_search.clone.38+0xe5/0x330 [btrfs] Oct 8 02:40:43 (none) kernel: [<f8980656>] btrfs_search_slot+0x1f6/0x670 [btrfs] Oct 8...