similar to: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2193 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xb0/0xc0 [btrfs]()

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 freeze rwsem is taken by sb_start_intwrite() and dropped during the commit_ or end_transaction(). In the async case, that happens in a worker thread. Tell lockdep the calling thread is releasing ownership of the rwsem and the async thread is picking it up. Josef and I worked out a more complicated solution that made the async commit thread join and potentially get a later transaction, but

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

The reason the deadlock is that: Task Btrfs-cleaner umount() down_write(&s->s_umount) sync_filesystem() do auto-defragment and produce lots of dirty pages close_ctree() wait for the end of btrfs-cleaner start_transaction reserve space shrink_delalloc() writeback_inodes_sb_nr_if_idle()

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

Dear Devs, I have x4 4TB HDDs formatted with: mkfs.btrfs -L bu-16TB_0 -d raid1 -m raid1 /dev/sd[cdef] /etc/fstab mounts with the options: noatime,noauto,space_cache,inode_cache All on kernel 3.8.13. Upon using rsync to copy some heavily hardlinked backups from ReiserFS, I''ve seen: The following "block rsv returned -28" is repeated 7 times until there is a call trace

Hello, (this is a recap of yesterday''s discussion on BTRFS IRC, also to save relevant pastes before pastebins expire) I have my /home on btrfs; a cronjob makes one snapshot every 30 minutes; these snapshots are kept for 24-48 hours, then deleted in batches. This is a 16K Leaf/Node BTRFS on top of mdadm RAID1. As system uptime approached 2 weeks, I started noticing that the free space

Hi everyone, This patchset is the latest approach I''m using for the Ceph storage daemon to keep track of which data has safely committed to disk. The basic idea is to not use the (problematic) user transaction ioctls at all. Instead, the daemon quiesces its own write requests, initiates an async snapshot, and then continues. The snapshot approach is nice because it provides rollback.

Hi Chris, This is the extent of my current queue of Btrfs snapshot/subvol/commit stuff. Most of these were posted several months ago. Can be sent upstream during this merge window? Not having this functionality is becoming a bit of a roadblock for our efforts to keep the Ceph data in a consistent state. These patches are also available from

Running an Ubuntu Raring VM which was built a week ago that is now running 3.8-rc6, I was booting it last night when it hung. After a few forced reboots, it came back up and I found the attached in kern.log. Mostly, the VM has been used for testing anisble deployment, so not a lot of work, just upgrading and installing software, then rebooting. Are these reports useful? Is there any

Is this useful to anyone? Got this after a crash/reboot: if (block_rsv) { WARN_ON(block_rsv->size > 0); <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< btrfs_free_block_rsv(root, block_rsv); } ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2165 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xcb/0xdf() Hardware name: 2429A78 Modules linked in:

This patch finally gives us full proper -ENOSPC handling for btrfs. Now whenever you do a btrfs_start_transaction, you must specify the number of items you are planning to add/delete/modify. The worst case number of blocks that could be modified by changing that number of items will be calculated and checked against the amount of free space in the space_info where the root you are modifying

Hello, Stephen, It seem that in the presence of several jornalling file systems in the kernel some mechanism is needed for proper sharing of the ->journal_info pointer in the task_struct. One journalled file system can indirectly call another during page fault in copy_from_user, quota file modification, or __alloc_pages()->balance_classzone()->shrink_cache()->vm_writeback()

Hi all, Did someone have met this problem before. When doing the tests, I hit the WARN_ON. Is this log make sense or someone had fixed the problem. If needed, I can supply the detail log and the testcase source file. Version: the latest codes at linus git tree. [ 2140.981293] use_block_rsv: 336 callbacks suppressed [ 2140.981295] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 2140.981308]

Kernel 3.1-rc8 btrfs-progs-0.19 mount options: noatime,autodefrag (space_cache is enabled) There are snapshots present on the filesystem. When I do a btrfs fi defrag on a file, the file becomes much more fragmented. The end result can be a file with 20k times more fragments than before. Initially I thought the extents were just smaller but were next to each other, so I checked with both

Added linux-btrfs and Helmut Hullen, who seemed to experience hangs on a T23 with BTRFS as well, to Cc. Am Thursday 03 February 2011 schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki: > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > of regressions introduced between 2.6.36 and 2.6.37. > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > introduced between

Hi all !!! I have got a MOSIX-Cluster and wanted to upgrade to ext3-fs, but that didn't work out. The ext3-fs patch FAILED to patch the MOSIX-kernel and if I tried to apply the ext3- patch before, the MOSIX-patch failed. Can someone help me with that ? Perhaps someone knows of a conclusion for that problem or can tell me where to get a MOSIX-patch for 2.4.15. I would be glad to hear from

Hello Developers, it seems that i discovered a bug in btrfs while testing it on a zSeries mainframe :-) ## Test environment: - IBM System z900 Mainframe - Debian SID with 64 Bit Kernel - GIT Sources from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git - System runs as z/VM guest - 3 Virtual CPUs - 1 GB RAM Storage ## Initial Test Setup - Setup a Debian SID System with

Hey, I have some issues with dovecot, because the public folder won't show up in Mail accounts. Dovecot is installed via zentyal 3.3. I tried several settings, but I dont get it running. What I tried is adding this to my dovecot.conf file # User's private mail location mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir # When creating any namespaces, you must also have a private namespace: namespace {

From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Scrubing supers is not in a transaction context, when trying to write supers to disk, we should check if we are trying to scrub supers.Fix it. Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 2 ++ fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c