similar to: [PATCH] Btrfs: cleanup orphan reservation if truncate fails

When adding orphans to an inode''s root, we start a transaction for that root that when ended in several places such as for example extent-tree.c:btrfs_remove_block_group(), inode.c:btrfs_unlink() and inode.c:btrfs_evict_node(), doesn''t result in a commit, that is, inode.c:btrfs_orphan_commit_root() doesn''t get called (via transaction.c:commit_fs_roots()). The respective

When a directory has a default ACL and a subdirectory is created under that directory, btrfs_init_acl() is called when the subdirectory''s inode is created to initialize the inode''s ACL (inherited from the parent directory) but it was clearing the ACL from the inode after setting it if posix_acl_create() returned success, instead of clearing it only if it returned an error. To

What happened to the hot data tracking feature in btrfs? There are a lot of old patches from aug 2010, but it looks like the feature has been completly removed from the current version of btrfs. Is this feature still on the roadmap?

Since there is a filesystem state, we should deal with it carefully at mount, umount and remount. - At mount, the FS state should be checked if there is error on these FS. If it does have, btrfsck is recommended. - At umount, the FS state should be saved into disk for consistency. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 47

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

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

On btrfs, do the following ------------------ # su user1 # cd btrfs-part/ # touch aaa # getfacl aaa # file: aaa # owner: user1 # group: user1 user::rw- group::rw- other::r-- # su user2 # cd btrfs-part/ # setfacl -m u::rwx aaa # getfacl aaa # file: aaa # owner: user1 # group: user1 user::rwx <- successed to setfacl group::rw- other::r-- ------------------ but we

Hi, I have a home server on Linux Arch (kernel 3.11.2) that uses multi-device btrfs on root filesystem. Until recently it worked completely fine. And yesterday I rebooted it and the machine did not wake up. I booted from a USB (kernel 3.10) and tried to mount the filesystem. Here is OOPs I see [ 41.676217] device fsid 25e6a6fa-fe1f-4be5-a638-eeac948f8c21 devid 8 transid 164237 /dev/sda [

hello, Chris In the next several months, I will have a lot of spare time. I will be happy if you assign some work to me. I have learn linux kernel for years but only fix a few small bugs in IP stack. In the past few months, I read some EXT4/VFS codes. I began reading source of btrfs ten days ago and have read it twice now. Regards YZ

Hi all, i am new on btrfs, i am testing KVM on btrfs (host: kernel x86-64 3.5.3), the performance is reasonable. I have two question on defrag, can someone help me? 1. According to btrfs wiki, defragment a COW file will produce two unrelated files. Does it apply to the "autodefrag" mount option? 2. Is there any command for the fragmentation status of a file/dir ? e.g. fragment

On 5/16/19 10:35 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > Can I take it your reviewed/acked-by? or tested-by tag? for the virtio patch :)I don't feel that I have enough expertise to give the reviewed-by tag, but you can take my acked-by + tested-by. Acked-by: Jakub Staron <jstaron at google.com> Tested-by: Jakub Staron <jstaron at google.com> No kernel panics/stalls encountered during

On 5/16/19 10:35 PM, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > Can I take it your reviewed/acked-by? or tested-by tag? for the virtio patch :)I don't feel that I have enough expertise to give the reviewed-by tag, but you can take my acked-by + tested-by. Acked-by: Jakub Staron <jstaron at google.com> Tested-by: Jakub Staron <jstaron at google.com> No kernel panics/stalls encountered during

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

Dear Sirs and Madams, I run a small visual effects production company, Hammerhead Productions. We'd like to have an easily extensible inexpensive relatively high-performance storage network using open-source components. I was hoping that OCFS2 would be that system. I have a half-dozen 2 TB fileservers I'd like the rest of the network to see as a single 12 TB disk, with the aggregate

Hi Ming, On 11.11.2014 08:56, Ming Lei wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe at kernel.dk> wrote: > > Known, I'm afraid, Ming is looking into it. Actually I had also tried to reproduce this bug, without success. But today I happened to know how to trigger the bug, by coincidence, during testing other things. Try to run xfstests/generic/034. You'll

Hi Ming, On 11.11.2014 08:56, Ming Lei wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe at kernel.dk> wrote: > > Known, I'm afraid, Ming is looking into it. Actually I had also tried to reproduce this bug, without success. But today I happened to know how to trigger the bug, by coincidence, during testing other things. Try to run xfstests/generic/034. You'll

On 2014-11-10 02:59, Rusty Russell wrote: > Jeff Layton <jlayton at poochiereds.net> writes: > >> In the latest Fedora rawhide kernel in the repos, I'm seeing the >> following oops when mounting xfs. rc2-ish kernels seem to be fine: >> >> [ 64.669633] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [ 64.670008] kernel BUG at drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:172!

On 2014-11-10 02:59, Rusty Russell wrote: > Jeff Layton <jlayton at poochiereds.net> writes: > >> In the latest Fedora rawhide kernel in the repos, I'm seeing the >> following oops when mounting xfs. rc2-ish kernels seem to be fine: >> >> [ 64.669633] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [ 64.670008] kernel BUG at drivers/block/virtio_blk.c:172!

On 03/12/2014 02:54 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > + > + /* > + * Now wait until the lock bit is cleared > + */ > + while (smp_load_acquire(&qlock->qlcode)& _QSPINLOCK_LOCKED) > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > + > + /* > + * Set the lock bit& clear the waiting bit simultaneously > + * It is assumed that there is no lock stealing with this > +

On 03/12/2014 02:54 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > + > + /* > + * Now wait until the lock bit is cleared > + */ > + while (smp_load_acquire(&qlock->qlcode)& _QSPINLOCK_LOCKED) > + arch_mutex_cpu_relax(); > + > + /* > + * Set the lock bit& clear the waiting bit simultaneously > + * It is assumed that there is no lock stealing with this > +