similar to: [patch] O_DIRECT: fix the splitting up of contiguous I/O

V1->V2: -Changed dio_end_io to EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL -Removed the own_submit blockdev dio helper -Removed the boundary change V2->V3 -Made it so we keep track of what the current logical offset in the file we have a BIO setup for so we can pass it into the submit_io hook. Because BTRFS can do RAID and such, we need our own submit hook so we can setup the bio''s in the correct fashion,

Hi, this is about an issue newer kernels show, bysplitting direct I/O requests into 4k pieces to directly merge them in the Block Device Layer afterwards. If anyone is interested in own tests just use a simple command like dd if=/mnt/test/test-dd1 of=/dev/null iflag=direct bs=64k count=1 in combination with blktrace. The following patch is more a proposal for discussion than a solution, well

Hello, My computer locked up and I had to press the reset button. Ever since then I can''t mount the btrfs filesystem, here''s the output: [ 37.645583] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 37.645598] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c:1887 btrfs_remove_free_space+0x329/0x350 [btrfs]() [ 37.645600] Modules linked in: btrfs zlib_deflate libcrc32c ext4 jbd2 mbcache crc16

Hi, I`ve find about BtrFS just this week, so I`ve not tested it so far. I`ll do it as soon as I got a spare disk to experiment with. But, I`ve two questions regarding BtrFS. First, do you plan inclusion of BtrFS into mainline kernel and if so, when do you expect this to happen? Second, I would like to see some more benchmarks of BtrFS, so far you provided comparison to Ext3 and XFS, which is

Hi there, Just gave 0.13 a spin against XFS (both with default mkfs options) on my SATA tower and was impressed by how much performance has improved since last time I played with it (v0.5)! It pretty much matched XFS for I/O performance and had much better file creation/deletion performance. http://www.csamuel.org/2008/03/23/btrfs-013-and-xfs-benchmarks cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel :

Currently there are 3 different capitalisations of btrfs: used in printk()''s, BTRFS: (3 occurences), Btrfs: (1 occurence) and btrfs: (77 occurences). It''s best to have them all the same for consistency, so we canonicalise the two minority cases to btrfs:. Signed-off-by: Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 4 ++-- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 4 ++-- 2

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 15:37:45AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:21:11AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 04:24:51PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> > Btrfs cannot handle having logically non-contiguous requests submitted. For >> > example if you have >> > >> > Logical: [0-4095][HOLE][8192-12287]

Hi Chris, et. al, I''ve recently come across cppcheck (static analyser for C code) and ran it on the current btrfs directory from Linus''s repo and it''s reported the following potential issues: linux-2.6$ cppcheck -q fs/btrfs/ [fs/btrfs/compression.c:343]: (error) Data is allocated but not initialized: cb [fs/btrfs/compression.c:583]: (error) Data is allocated but not

While untar''ing an image to an sd card via a reader, I got the following bug. The system also has a btrfs root, and a whole swath of processes went into uninterruptable sleep. I was able to poke around via ssh and sysrq, and already had netconsole set up to capture the bug. Root fs is on /dev/sdi1, and /dev/sdj2 is the card reader which was the target of the untar. [29571.448889] sd

V1->V2: Check to see if our current ppos is >= i_size after a short DIO read, just in case it was actually a short read and we need to just return. This is similar to what already happens in the write case. If we have a short read while doing O_DIRECT, instead of just returning, fallthrough and try to read the rest via buffered IO. BTRFS needs this because if we encounter a compressed or

Hi folks, For people who might be interested, here is how btrfs performs with two partitions on a single SSD drive in a RAID-1 mirror. This is on a Dell E4200 with Core 2 Duo U9300 (1.2GHz), 2GB RAM and a Samsung SSD (128GB Thin uSATA SSD). Version 1.03c ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block--

In the latest btrfs tools from git it''s a typo: ierdnac-hp ~ # btrfs|grep dafault btrfs subvolume get-dafault <path> btrfs subvolume set-dafault <subvolid> <path> ierdnac-hp ~ # Andrei -- Andrei Popa NOC Manager - Nextgen Communications 0760 683 280

As far as I know, btrfs comes from "btree file system", but why does btrfs pronounce "butter-eff-ess"? -- Wang Shaoyan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Here is a small btrfs vs. ext4 benchmark with kernel 2.6.37-rc1. compilebench with options -i 10 -r 30 on 2.6.37-rc1 btrfs ========================================================================== intial create total runs 10 avg 73.11 MB/s (user 0.34s sys 1.96s) create total runs 5 avg 49.53 MB/s (user 0.41s sys 1.62s) patch total runs 4 avg 22.13 MB/s (user 0.09s sys 1.79s) compile total runs

Hello, I''ve stumbled upon this article: http://storagemojo.com/2011/06/27/de-dup-too-much-of-good-thing/ Reportedly Sandforce SF1200 SSD controller does internally block-level data de-duplication. This effectively removes the additional protection given by writing multiple metadata copies. This technique may be used, or can be used in the future by manufactureres of other drives too. I

Dear Btrfs people, I saw Chris' Btrfs talk at LinuxConf.EU a few weeks ago and have since been thinking about how I would like to use this great code once you have done all the hard work :-) Fine-grain filesystem undo, thanks to cheap snapshots, is what I'm thinking about. The more I consider it the more useful I believe it will be; here's a recent example: # apt-get install

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

I have a system running the Debian package of 3.11.5 with an Amd Opteron 1212 processor (2*64bit cores), 8G of RAM, and an Intel 120G SSD for the root and home subvols. It has a RAID-1 array of 2*3TB disks for bulk storage (movies etc) but that probably isn''t relevant to this problem. On the root filesystem I have cron jobs making daily snapshots of / and /home and additional

Hi, I''m hitting this issue - sda5 is a normal device, nothing to do with loop, encryption etc. # mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda5 WARNING! - Btrfs v0.19-35-g1b444cd-dirty IS EXPERIMENTAL WARNING! - see http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org before using error checking /dev/sda5 mount status Is there something I can do to resolve this? Thank you Lubos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

This was already required before, but no check in the kernel was done to enforce it. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> --- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c index 73cf240..ddb065c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_display.c @@ -107,6