similar to: btrfs-delalloc - threaded?

Liu fixed part of this problem and unfortunately I steered him in slightly the wrong direction and so didn''t completely fix the problem. The problem is we limit the size of the delalloc range we are looking for to max bytes and then we try to lock that range. If we fail to lock the pages in that range we will shrink the max bytes to a single page and re loop. However if our first page

Hello all. What we have: SL6 - kernel 2.6.32-131.2.1.el6.x86_64 btrfs on mdadm RAID5 with 8 HDD - 27T partition. I see this at top: 1182 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 100.0 0.0 16:39.73 [btrfs-delalloc-] And LA is grow. What is this and how can I fix it? -- Best regards, Proskurin Kirill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of

When testing with max_extents=4k, we enospc out really really early. The reason for this is we really overwhelm the system with our worst case calculation. When we try to flush delalloc, we don''t want everybody to wait around forever, so we wake up the waiters when we''ve done some of the work in hopes that its enough work to get everything they need done. The problem with this

Hiya, is there any recommendation out there to setup a btrfs FS on top of hardware or software raid5 or raid6 wrt stripe/stride alignment? From mkfs.btrfs, it doesn''t look like there''s much that can be adjusted that would help, and what I''m asking might not even make sense for btrfs but I thought I''d just ask. Thanks, Stephane -- To unsubscribe from this

Greetings all, I see the following issue during snap creation under IO: Transaction commit calls btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes() that locks the delalloc_inodes list, fetches the first inode, unlocks the list, triggers btrfs_alloc_delalloc_work/btrfs_queue_worker for this inode and then locks the list again. Then it checks the head of the list again. In my case, this is always exactly the same

So both Liu and I made huge messes of find_lock_delalloc_range trying to fix stuff, me first by fixing extent size, then him by fixing something I broke and then me again telling him to fix it a different way. So this is obviously a candidate for some testing. This patch adds a pseudo fs so we can allocate fake inodes for tests that need an inode or pages. Then it addes a bunch of tests to make

Hi, I reported a bug to anaconda (rhbz 901905), but it might be btfs related. Anaconda does this: 18:49:10,317 INFO program: Running... mkfs.btrfs --data=single --label=fedora /dev/vdb1 /dev/vdc1 /dev/vdd1 /dev/vde1 18:49:10,742 INFO program: 18:49:10,746 INFO program: WARNING! - Btrfs Btrfs v0.19 IS EXPERIMENTAL 18:49:10,746 INFO program: WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before

Hiya, Recently, a btrfs file system of mine started to behave very poorly with some btrfs kernel tasks taking 100% of CPU time. # btrfs fi show /dev/sdb Label: none uuid: b3ce8b16-970e-4ba8-b9d2-4c7de270d0f1 Total devices 3 FS bytes used 4.25TB devid 2 size 2.73TB used 1.52TB path /dev/sdc devid 1 size 2.70TB used 1.49TB path /dev/sda4 devid 3 size

On 06/30/2011 09:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On 06/30/2011 10:12 AM, Proskurin Kirill wrote: >> On 06/29/2011 08:14 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> Ok - I upgrade to 2.6.39-2 but it is seems to all things get worse. >>>> Now I see [btrfs-transacti]& btrfs-endio-wri] 80-100% all the time and >>>> io performance looks like lower then before.

Hello, As stated in the -- 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

Returns a file''s size on disk. Had been posted by Chris Ball over a year ago (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/2873). Chris Mason suggested a couple of improvements back then, which I have implemented in this version: - use u64 to return the result - replaced the loop while (1) { struct btrfs_ordered_extent *ordered;

I''ve just finished installing onto an OCZ Agilent v2 SSD with btrfs as filesystem. However to my surprise I''ve hit an ENOSPC condition one one of the partitions within less than a day of uptime, while the filesystem on that partition only reported 50% to be in use, which is far from the 75% limit people mention on the ML. Note that this occurs using a vanilla 2.6.32-rc5 kernel

I wanted to see how btrfs compares to other filesystems so I have been running bonnie++ on it. While the results are good(much faster then ext2) every once in awhile I get a kernel oops. I am testing on xubuntu 8.10 with the 2.6.27-7-686 kernel using the latest git sources. Most of the time the oops happens within 20min of running bonnie++ but sometimes it takes a few hours. This happens with and

Chris: I''m consistently getting oopses when running fsstress against both single and multiple device compressed btrfs filesystems using kernels built from the current btrfs-unstable. In this report, I''m describing an incident with a single device filesystem. Once the oops occurs, all I/O appears to stop though iowait is still reported, and fsstress does not make apparent

I found that I''m able to provoke undefined behaviour with 2.6.38 with extent defragmenting + recompression, eg: mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb mount /dev/sdb /mnt cp -xa / /mnt find /mnt -print0 | xargs -0 btrfs filesystem defragment -vc After a short time, I was seeing what looked like a secondary effect [1]. Reproducing with lock instrumentation reported recursive spinlock acquisition, probably

I notice this question on the wiki/faq: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/UseCases#What_is_best_practice_when_partitioning_a_device_that_holds_one_or_more_btr-filesystems and as it hasn''t been answered, can anyone make any comments on the subject Various things come to mind: a) partition the disk, create an LVM partition, and create lots of small LVs, format each as btrfs b)

We forget to clear inode''s dirty_bytes and EXTENT_DIRTY at the end of write. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/file.c | 1 - fs/btrfs/inode.c | 5 ++++- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index e7872e4..3f3b4a8 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -1150,7 +1150,6 @@

try_to_writeback_inodes_sb_nr returns 1 if writeback is already underway, which is completely fraking useless for us as we need to make sure pages are actually written before we go and check if there are ordered extents. So replace this with an open coding of try_to_writeback_inodes_sb_nr minus the writeback underway check so that we are sure to actually have flushed some dirty pages out and will

When using delalloc workers in a non-waiting way (like for enospc handling) we can end up not actually waiting for the dirty pages to be started if we have compression. We need to add an extra filemap flush to make sure any async extents that have started are actually moved along before returning. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 18

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