similar to: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix another orphan cleanup problem

In fixing how we deal with bad inodes, we had a regression in the orphan cleanup code, since it expects to get a bad inode back. So fix it to deal with getting -ESTALE back by deleting the orphan item manually and moving on. Thanks, Reported-by: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 36

Hello, I want to throw this out here now that I''ve got most of the heavy lifting done for this code to make sure what I''m doing is ok for now. I''ve added an ORPHAN_DIR item key to have a hidden dir per root. Right now it just does it for whatever the default root is on mount, but I''m going to fix that to do the orphan dir check/creation on lookup of a

We''ve been seeing warnings coming out of the orphan commit stuff forever from ceph. Turns out it''s because we''re racing with checking if the orphan block reserve is set, because we clear it outside of the spin_lock. So leave the normal fastpath checks where they are, but take the spin_lock and _recheck_ to make sure we haven''t had an orphan block rsv added in

We do log replay in a single transaction, so it''s not good to do unbound operations during replaying log. This patch makes orphan inodes cleanup executed after replaying log. It also avoid doing other unbound operations such as truncating a file during replaying log. These unbound operations are postponed to the orphan inode cleanup stage. Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng

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

Currently there are 3 different capitalisations of btrfs: used in printk()''s, BTRFS: (3 occurences), Btrfs: (1 occurence) and btrfs: (77 occurences). It''s best to have them all the same for consistency, so we canonicalise the two minority cases to btrfs:. Signed-off-by: Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++-- 2

Hello, I''m seeing a lot of warnings in dmesg with a BTRFS filesystem. I''m using the 3.1 kernel, I found a patch for these warnings ( http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=131547325515336&w=2) <http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=131547325515336&w=2>, but that patch has already been included in 3.1. Are there any other patches I can try? I''m using

The original truncation of btrfs has a bug, that is the orphan item will not be dropped when the truncation fails. This bug will trigger BUG() when unlink that truncated file. And besides that, if the user does pre-allocation for the file which is truncated unsuccessfully, after re-mount(umount-mount, not -o remount), the pre-allocated extent will be dropped. This patch modified the relative

This happens on a freshly created btrfs filesystem in a raid10 (4x1TB) configuration with three subvolumes and 1.5 TB data. When I try to snapshot one of the subvolumes (with 100 GB of data), it says that the snapshot creation failed and I get the following error message: btrfs: could not do orphan cleanup -116 After the failure: - The snapshot exists in `btrfs subvolume list'' - The

I booted the guest in which i was testing btrfs (transient ENOSPC issues, etc). It booted in emergency mode. [ 6.705187] device label testfs1 devid 1 transid 4141 /dev/sdb1 [ 6.724353] device label fedora devid 1 transid 2036 /dev/sda2 [ 6.780931] device label fedora devid 1 transid 2036 /dev/sda2 [ 6.817157] snd_hda_intel 0000:00:04.0: irq 42 for MSI/MSI-X [ 6.818326]

Srini, Ok, you can go ahead and cook up the background orphan cleaner. Now, we can do this in a workqueue, a thread, or a timer. I don't see why a timer doesn't work. When the timer fires, you do this: 1. Take EX on a new orphan_scan lock. 2. check the LVB for the last scan time. If it's less than the scan timeout, reset the timer for (timeout - last scan), drop the EX, and

Hi Joel/Srini, Here are 2 patches for orphan lock in local mode. patch 1: In local mode, we don't need lvb, so don't init it. patch 2: In local mode, orphan lock and unlock don't need to go to dlm part. Regards, Tao

I noticed while running xfstests 83 that if we didn''t have enough space to delete our inode the orphan cleanup would just loop. This is because it keeps finding the same orphan item and keeps trying to kill it but can''t because we don''t get an error back from iput for deleting the inode. So keep track of the last guy we tried to kill, if it''s the same as the

lld does not seem to create the __start and __end symbols for orphan sections. I would like to keep my linker script as generic as possible so how can I tell lld to create these symbols without having to add them in the linker script? Thanks A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

You are right it creates them but sets the protected flag (STV_PROTECTED) which seems to be the cause of my problem. How can I tell it to set the flag as STV_DEFAULT? Thanks A On 5/28/20, 11:30 PM, "Fangrui Song" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know

This fixes bugzilla 57491. If we take a snapshot of a fs with a unlink ongoing and then try to send that root we will run into problems. When comparing with a parent root we will search the parents and the send roots commit_root, which if we''ve just created the snapshot will include the file that needs to be evicted by the orphan cleanup. So when we find a changed extent we will try

I noticed we were getting lots of warnings with xfstest 83 because we have reservations outstanding. This is because we moved the orphan add outside of the truncate, but we don''t actually cleanup our reservation if something fails. This fixes the problem and I no longer see warnings. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2 ++ 1

Hi, I''m using btrfs on Ubuntu 10.10 for some test partitions. After doing some normal operations I suddenly couldn''t mount the partition anymore. I always get the error "BTRFS: inode 120790 still on the orphan list" in the kernel log again and again and it''s impossible to stop the mount command or shutdown the system. Any ideas how to work around this issue?

On 2020-06-02, Moshtaghi, Alireza wrote: >Sorry for the cryptic code but I had to modify stuff from original >In the following example see the difference when you comment or uncomment the line in the linker script: >============ test.c ============= : >struct orphan_dummy_anno_s { > void (*func)(void); >}; > >static void dummy_export_dbg_log_init_f (void) __attribute__

Dear All, My servers running on CentOS 5.5 x86_64 with kernel 2.6.18.194.17.4.el gigabyte motherboard and 2 harddisks (seagate 500GB). My CentOS box configured RAID 1, yesterday and today I had the same problem on 2 servers with same configuration. See the following error messages for details: EXT3-fs: INFO: recovery required on readonly filesystem. EXT3-fs: write access will be enabled during