similar to: Deadlock in btrfs-cleaner, related to snapshot deletion

I''ve been working on running down intermittent ENOSPC issues. I can only seem to replicate ENOSPC errors when running zlib compression. However, I have been seeing similar ENOSPC errors to a lesser extent when playing with the LZ4HC patches. I apologize for not following up on this sooner, but I had drifted away from using zlib, and didn''t notice there was still an issue. My

Hi, Recently, I made a btrfs to use. And I met slowness problem. Trying to diag it. I found this: 1. dd if=/dev/zero of=test count=1024 bs=1MB This is fast, at about 25MB/s, and reasonable iowait. 2. dd if=/dev/zero of=test count=1 bs=1GB This is pretty slow, at about 1.5MB/s, and 90%+ iowait, constantly. May I know why it works like this? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the

I''m running into a problem with the btrfs-cleaner thread becoming blocked on xfstests 068. The test locks up indefinitely without completing (normally it finished in about 45 seconds on my test box). I''ve replicated the issue on 3.10.0_rc5 and the for-linus branch of 3.9.0. I ran a git bisect on the 3.9.0 for-linus branch, and tracked my issue to the following commit: commit

We need an smb_mb() before waitqueue_active to avoid missing wakeups. Before Mitch was hitting a deadlock between the ordered flushers and the transaction commit because the ordered flushers were waiting for more refs and were never woken up, so those smp_mb()''s are the most important. Everything else I added for correctness sake and to avoid getting bitten by this again somewhere else.

Hi, I got a panic when running CentOS-6.5: crash> bt PID: 106074 TASK: ffff8839c1e32ae0 CPU: 4 COMMAND: "flushd4[cbd-sd-" #0 [ffff8839c2a91900] machine_kexec at ffffffff81038fa9 #1 [ffff8839c2a91960] crash_kexec at ffffffff810c5992 #2 [ffff8839c2a91a30] oops_end at ffffffff81515c90 #3 [ffff8839c2a91a60] no_context at ffffffff81049f1b #4 [ffff8839c2a91ab0]

I am currently looking at a bug report[1] which is happening when a Xen PVM guest with multiple VCPUs is running a high IO database load (a test script is available in the bug report). In experimenting it seems that this happens (or is getting more likely) when the number of VCPUs is 8 or higher (though I have not tried 6, only 2 and 4), having autogroup enabled seems to make it more likely, too