similar to: Updated btrfs-next

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.

This fixes bugzilla 57491. If we take a snapshot of a fs with a unlink ongoing and then try to send that root we will run into problems. When comparing with a parent root we will search the parents and the send roots commit_root, which if we''ve just created the snapshot will include the file that needs to be evicted by the orphan cleanup. So when we find a changed extent we will try

Josef has implemented mixed data/metadata chunks, we must add those chunks'' space just like data chunks. Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/super.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c index 61bd79a..1d21208 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c @@ -768,11 +768,10

When the binary search returns 0 (exact match), the target key will necessarily be at slot 0 of all nodes below the current one, so in this case the binary search is not needed because it will always return 0, and we waste time doing it, holding node locks for longer than necessary, etc. Below follow histograms with the times spent on the current approach of doing a binary search when the

The original truncation of btrfs has a bug, that is the orphan item will not be dropped when the truncation fails. This bug will trigger BUG() when unlink that truncated file. And besides that, if the user does pre-allocation for the file which is truncated unsuccessfully, after re-mount(umount-mount, not -o remount), the pre-allocated extent will be dropped. This patch modified the relative

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

Hi Linus, My for-linus branch has a one line fix: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus Sage hit a deadlock with ceph on btrfs, and Josef tracked it down to a regression in our initial rc1 pull. When doing nocow writes we were sometimes starting a transaction with locks held. Josef Bacik (1) commits (+1/-0): Btrfs: release path before starting

An user reported that he has hit an annoying deadlock while playing with ceph based on btrfs. Current updating device tree requires space from METADATA chunk, so we -may- need to do a recursive chunk allocation when adding/updating dev extent, that is where the deadlock comes from. If we use SYSTEM metadata to update device tree, we can avoid the recursive stuff. Reported-by: Jim Schutt

I''ve just pushed out a new integration branch to my git repo. This is purely bugfix patches -- there are no new features in this issue of the integration branch. I''ve got a stack of about a dozen more patches with new features in them still to go. I''ll be working on those tomorrow. As always, there''s minimal testing involved here, but it does at least compile on

Alex pointed out the consequences after a transaction is not committed when a subvolume is deleted, so in case of a crash before an actual commit happens will let the subvolume reappear. Original post: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg22088.html Josef''s objections: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg22256.html While there''s no need to do a full commit for

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

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

If we have particularly full nodes, we could call btrfs_node_blockptr up to 32 times, which is 32 pairs of kmap/kunmap, which _sucks_. So go ahead and map the extent buffer while we look for readahead targets. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git

Btrfs uses an rwsem to control access to its extent tree. Threads will hold a read lock on this rwsem while they scan the extent tree, and if need_resched() they will drop the lock and schedule. The transaction commit needs to take a write lock for this rwsem for a very short period to switch out the commit roots. If there are a lot of threads doing this caching operation we can starve out the

Hello, I was bored this weekend so I hacked up online dedup for Btrfs. It''s working quite well so I think it can be more widely tested. There are two ways to use it 1) Compatible mode - this is a bit slower but will handle being used by older kernels. We use the csum tree to find duplicate blocks. Since it is relatively easy to have crc32c collisions this also involves reading the

We''ve been seeing warnings coming out of the orphan commit stuff forever from ceph. Turns out it''s because we''re racing with checking if the orphan block reserve is set, because we clear it outside of the spin_lock. So leave the normal fastpath checks where they are, but take the spin_lock and _recheck_ to make sure we haven''t had an orphan block rsv added in

Hello, Trying to put together a list of TODO items for btrfs so we can update the wiki page fully. So far these things are on the list * Proper ENOSPC handling * O_DIRECT support (without checksumming) * AIO support * Subvolume quotas and inherited space usage information * Snapshot removal * QA Suite for automated regression testing * Reserved space for online fsck and the ability to add

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

Back story: I started my pool with a 200gb partition at the end of my drive (sdc5) , until I was able to clear out the data at the beginning of my drive. When I was ready, I ran `btrfs dev add /dev/sdc4 /` then `btrfs dev del /dev/sdc5 /`, $ sudo btrfs fi resize max / Resize ''/'' of ''max'' ERROR: unable to resize ''/'' - Invalid argument in

In fixing how we deal with bad inodes, we had a regression in the orphan cleanup code, since it expects to get a bad inode back. So fix it to deal with getting -ESTALE back by deleting the orphan item manually and moving on. Thanks, Reported-by: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 36