search for: btrfs_compress_lzo

...-- a/btrfs_cmds.c +++ b/btrfs_cmds.c @@ -142,10 +142,21 @@ static u64 parse_size(char *s) return atoll(s) * mult; } +static int parse_compress_type(char *s) +{ + if (strcmp(optarg, "zlib") == 0) + return BTRFS_COMPRESS_ZLIB; + else if (strcmp(optarg, "lzo") == 0) + return BTRFS_COMPRESS_LZO; + else { + fprintf(stderr, "Unknown compress type %s\n", s); + exit(1); + }; +} + int do_defrag(int ac, char **av) { int fd; - int compress = 0; int flush = 0; u64 start = 0; u64 len = (u64)-1; @@ -156,15 +167,18 @@ int do_defrag(int ac, char **av) int verbose = 0; int fa...

...4 skip = 0; u64 defrag_end = 0; @@ -1233,11 +1231,8 @@ int btrfs_defrag_file(struct inode *inode, struct file *file, mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); } - disk_super = root->fs_info->super_copy; - features = btrfs_super_incompat_flags(disk_super); if (range->compress_type == BTRFS_COMPRESS_LZO) { - features |= BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_COMPRESS_LZO; - btrfs_set_super_incompat_flags(disk_super, features); + btrfs_set_fs_incompat(root->fs_info, COMPRESS_LZO); } ret = defrag_count; @@ -2761,8 +2756,6 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_default_subvol(struct file *file, void __user *argp)...

WARNING: This is not compatible with the previous lz4 patchset. If you''re using experimental compression that isn''t in mainline kernels, be prepared to backup and restore or decompress before upgrading, and have backups in case it eats data (which appears not to be a problem any more, but has been during development). These patches add lz4 and lz4hc compression

Hi, so here it is, LZ4 compression method inside btrfs. The patchset is based on top of current Chris'' for-linus + Andi''s snappy implementation + the fixes from Li Zefan. Passes xfstests and stresstests. I haven''t measured performance on wide range of hardware or workloads, rather wanted to publish the patches before I get distracted again. I''d like to ask

After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again. Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata is much better. The only problem (?) I''m still seeing is a warning that seems to occur from time to time: [87703.784552] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [87703.789759] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2103