similar to: [PATCH] Btrfs: stop using try_to_writeback_inodes_sb_nr to flush delalloc

writeback_inodes_sb(_nr)_if_idle() is re-implemented by replacing down_read() with down_read_trylock() because - If ->s_umount is write locked, then the sb is not idle. That is writeback_inodes_sb(_nr)_if_idle() needn''t wait for the lock. - writeback_inodes_sb(_nr)_if_idle() grabs s_umount lock when it want to start writeback, it may bring us deadlock problem when doing umount.

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()

This disappeared when I removed the special case for ''.'' in btrfs_lookup() Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> --- super.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/super.c b/super.c index 55f4d00..f7b3eac 100644 --- a/super.c +++ b/super.c @@ -451,21 +451,25 @@ static int

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

Hi all. I was doing some testing with writing out data to a BTFS filesystem with the compress-force option. With 1 program running, I saw btfs-delalloc taking about 1 CPU worth of time, much as could be expected. I then started up 2 programs at the same time, writing data to the BTRFS volume. btrfs-delalloc still only used 1 CPU worth of time. Is btrfs-delalloc threaded, to where it can use

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.

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

This patch adds freeze_fs()/unfreeze_fs() for ocfs2 so that it supports freeze/thaw. Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang at oracle.com> --- fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h | 2 + fs/ocfs2/journal.c | 1 + fs/ocfs2/ocfs2.h | 12 +++++ fs/ocfs2/super.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-

virtio_fs_free_devs() is now called from ->kill_sb(). By this time all device queues have been quiesced. I am assuming that while ->kill_sb() is in progress, another mount instance will wait for it to finish (sb->s_umount mutex provides mutual exclusion). W.r.t ->remove path, we should be fine as we are not touching vdev or virtqueues. And we have reference on virtio_fs object, so we

This patch fixes the data loss which can occur when unmounting a data=journal ext3 filesystem. The core problem is that the VFS doesn't tell the filesystem enough about what is happening. ext3 _needs_ to know the difference between regular memory-cleansing writeback and sync-for-data-integrity purposes. (These two operations are really quite distinct, and the kernel has got it wrong for

I'm a newbie with a TDM11B. I've read the FAQs about linking /usr/src/linux-2.6 to /usr/src/linux-2.6.8-1.521 and /lib/linux-2.6 to /lib/linux-2.6.8-1.521 but still get a million errors and eventual abort during compile. Could someone point me in the right direction? I do a yum update every day and I'm using the CVS from 9/14/04. I'm also using an ASUS CUSL2 system board.

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

There are three patches at http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.4/2.4.20/ sync_fs.patch: Fix the ext3 data=journal data-loss-on-unmount bug sync_fs-fix.patch: Fix sync_fs.patch to not deadlock the fs when running `mount -o remount' against a heavily loaded filesystem. ext3-use-after-free.patch Fix a use-after-free bug which can cause memory corruption if the filesystem runs

The type of some functions that return only 0 is changed to ''void''. In addition, the check on the return value in the caller of these functions becomes unnecessary. So, these check is removed. Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh <t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/async-thread.c | 17 ++++-------- fs/btrfs/async-thread.h | 4 +- fs/btrfs/compression.c | 14 ++++------

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

I already did what you said,please see the log results in zaptel.rar attached when I compile zapltel using make ********************************************* No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Xplorium with another party by e-mail without express written confirmation by an officer of Xplorium. Any views expressed by an individual in this

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

We are running a benchmark that does single threaded 512 KB writes to a LUN on a CLARiiON storage array. The dual Xeon host (Dell 2650) with 4 GB of memory runs RHEL 4U3 We measured the write bandwidth for writes to the block device corresponding to the lun (e.g. /dev/sdb), a file in an ext2 filesystem and to a file in an ext3 file system. Write b/w for 512 KB writes Block device 312 MBps Ext2