Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "defrag_inod".
Did you mean:
defrag_inodes
2012 May 24
2
[PATCH] Btrfs: fix the same inode id problem when doing auto defragment
...frag->ino > entry->ino)
+ else if (__compare_inode_defrag(defrag, entry) > 0)
p = &parent->rb_right;
else {
/* if we''re reinserting an entry for
@@ -159,28 +174,33 @@ int btrfs_add_inode_defrag(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
/*
* must be called with the defrag_inodes lock held
*/
-struct inode_defrag *btrfs_find_defrag_inode(struct btrfs_fs_info *info, u64 ino,
+struct inode_defrag *btrfs_find_defrag_inode(struct btrfs_fs_info *info,
+ u64 root, u64 ino,
struct rb_node **next)
{
struct inode_defrag *entry = NULL;
+ struct inode_defrag...
2011 Jun 10
6
[PATCH v2 0/6] btrfs: generic readeahead interface
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
2011 Jun 29
14
[PATCH v4 0/6] btrfs: generic readeahead interface
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
2012 Apr 20
44
Ceph on btrfs 3.4rc
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