100521074160_504560007171Josef Bacik
This patch removes the pinned_mutex. The extent io map has an internal tree lock that protects the tree itself, and since we only copy the extent io map when we are committing the transaction we don

 
100224264192_523260007698Josef Bacik
This patch removes the pinned_mutex. The extent io map has an internal tree lock that protects the tree itself, and since we only copy the extent io map when we are committing the transaction we don

 
168223314433_567060007611CSights
This patch cleans up the free space cache code a bit. It better documents the idiosyncrasies of tree_search_offset and makes the code make a bit more sense. I took out the info allocation at the sta

 
150521584181_522460007141CSights
This patch cleans up the free space cache code a bit. It better documents the idiosyncrasies of tree_search_offset and makes the code make a bit more sense. I took out the info allocation at the sta

 
139321974251_544060007266Chris Mason

 
122524014373_538560007965Chris Mason

 
155624484390_574960007198Chris Mason
This is true, cp makes a full copy of the file. The btrfs utilities include a program called bcp that makes a COW copy of a single file (or directory tree) with a btrfs specific ioctl. Okay,

 
144623624530_587960007296Chris Mason
This is true, cp makes a full copy of the file. The btrfs utilities include a program called bcp that makes a COW copy of a single file (or directory tree) with a btrfs specific ioctl. Okay,

 
149025374454_567260007977Chris Mason
Hi everyone, Here is an expanded example which is how I imagined COW would handle changes to the files data ("file contents"). One can pretend it is an attempt to inject mali

 
181421554174_506460007570Dmitri Nikulin
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:35 AM, CSights <csights@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi everyone,        Im curious what would happen in btrfs if the following commands were issued: #

 
133128204971_570560007417Luca Bruno
There are still some warnings of the form: format %llu expects type long long unsigned int but argument has type u64 In conjunction with -Werror, this is causing some build failures. Now theyre pro

 
166927614865_505960007546Chris Mason
Hello, recently I installed a distribution I want to look at via chroot into a btrfs subvolume on a multidevice btrfs. Now I tried to boot this, the kernel command line in GRUB looks as follows so

 
125829564909_578960007941Chris Mason

 
108423244478_553960007239Chris Mason

 
151528104394_569060007990Chris Mason

 
125922054810_523060007014Chris Mason

 
164725794776_551260007285Aaron Straus
If were waiting for a transaction to end, and it started more than five minutes ago, emit a warning. Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx --- fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 1 + 1 files chang

 
105728974240_596660007074David John
Signed-off-by: Stoyan Gaydarov <stoyboyker@xxxxxxxxx --- fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 3 +-- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 +-- fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c | 3 +-- fs/btrfs/tree-log

 
190727704399_538460007395Oliver Mattos
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 4:16 AM, David John <davidjonx@xxxxxxxxx wrote: Stoyan Gaydarov wrote: Signed-off-by: Stoyan Gaydarov <stoyboyker@xxxxxxxxx ---  fs/btrfs/ctree.c  

 
162328244204_501760007078Hugo Mills
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 00:10 -0500, Stoyan Gaydarov wrote: Signed-off-by: Stoyan Gaydarov <stoyboyker@xxxxxxxxx --- fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 3 +-- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |

 
100627724283_581660007193Chris Mason
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:31:41AM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: After an online resize, the filesystem reports its new size, but still runs out of space at the old size: [...] Unmounting and

 
183126494772_560660007410Jens Axboe
I tried applying this patch, but the fragmentation_percent function is giving me: WARNING: "__udivdi3" [/home/partition6/yien/git/linux-git/fs/btrfs/btrfs.ko] undefined! when I compile, a

 
189222184306_513160007992Simon Holm ThxF8gers
Thanks Jens! My research had indicated something about 64-bit division and using do_div, but you cleared it up for me. The fragmentation_percent function ultimately does another divide to get the p

 
120620904761_560560007068Josef Bacik

 
200020974892_520360007404Josef Bacik

 
128221214176_556560007178Josef Bacik
This patch improves the allocators packing ability to greatly improve cold-cache reads. Instead of handling the empty_size logic within find_free_extent, we simply pass it to btrfs_find_free_space,

 
175827684827_553060007987Josef Bacik
Last night, this event jammed up a good chunk of my server: Mar 4 01:51:36 vlad kernel: btrfs searching for 1716224 bytes, num_bytes 1716224, loop 2, allowed_alloc 1 Mar 4 01:51:36 vlad kernel:

 
194022654204_524660007388Yien Zheng
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 06:06:19PM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: Last night, this event jammed up a good chunk of my server:

 
123726034478_599960007953Dmitri Nikulin
I just tried umounting the partition and got this: [ 1395.028651] btrfs searching for 69632 bytes, num_bytes 69632, loop 2, allowed_alloc 1 [ 1395.028661] btrfs allocation failed flags 1, wanted 696

 
106622084049_595960007163Hugo Mills
This is just a hunch, but maybe the handling of spare files (such as .vdi) is not ideal or not what were used to with extN. Normally "skipped" blocks do not count towards the disk f

 
136326944284_553960007221Jan Engelhardt
This patch lets each root keep track of a small area of contigous space from which to allocate from in order to keep blocks for different roots interleaving themselves on disk. This happens in two p

 
171720164989_554460007362Jan Engelhardt
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 04:09:38AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: Hi, The following oops was obtained by doing some copying; its tainted-P by nvidia but maybe it still gives some hints.

 
153024874628_573560007024Jan Engelhardt
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 05:11:06PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Tuesday 2009-03-03 16:40, Josef Bacik wrote: The following oops was obtained by doing some copying; its tainted-P by

 
112229714628_560160007836Peter Vander Klippe
Hi, I just wanted to inform you all that Ive built btrfs packages for ubuntu (intrepid). You can find them in my PPA ( rel="nofollow" launchpad.net/~brcha/+archive/ppa launchpad.net/~brcha/+a

 
155320364043_560260007455Marc Schoechlin
Hello Developers, it seems that i discovered a bug in btrfs while testing it on a zSeries mainframe :-) ## Test environment: - IBM System z900 Mainframe - Debian SID with 64 Bit Kernel - GIT Sourc

 
176623584148_504960007407Marc Schoechlin
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:16 +0100, Marc Schoechlin wrote: Hello Developers, it seems that i discovered a bug in btrfs while testing it on a zSeries mainframe :-) Thanks, Ill try to repro

 
127126144424_526060007971Josef Bacik
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 09:36:08PM +0100, Marc Schoechlin (linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: [ 359.658789] btrfs allocation failed flags 68, wanted 4096 [ 359.659966] space_info has 932491264

 
162226884457_525060007190Lee Trager
Hello everyone, Ive rebased the experimental branch again with my latest performance fixes. I took out the delayed unlink code, it wasnt making a big enough difference in any benchmarks to justify

 
127425444161_590260007130Lee Trager
Hello everyone, Ive rebased the experimental branch again with my latest performance fixes. I took out the delayed unlink code, it wasnt making a big enough difference in any benchmarks to justify

 
173726984166_578160007161Lee Trager

 
123620654519_538460007416Lee Trager

 
179223864029_521660007187Steven Pratt

 
118722684875_564560007297Steven Pratt

 
183527934842_599760007987Steven Pratt
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:54 -0600, Steven Pratt wrote: Chris Mason wrote: Hello everyone, Ive rebased the experimental branch again with my latest performance fixes. I took

 
112624314684_529360007984Steven Pratt
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 22:07:33 Steven Pratt escribió: All in all good progress. Results and graphs can be found here: rel="nofollow" btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/h

 
145424474049_597360007164Steven Pratt
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 16:54 -0600, Steven Pratt wrote: Chris Mason wrote: Hello everyone, Ive rebased the experimental branch again with my latest performance fixes. I took

 
138926244550_541960007196Chris Ball
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 23:55:08 Steven Pratt escribió: Unless I am missing something, what you are referring to is a simple wraping/alignment issue in the key on the long name

 
160620274465_548160007983Steven Pratt
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 22:07:33 Steven Pratt escribió: All in all good progress. Results and graphs can be found here: rel="nofollow" btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/h

 
177925064776_562060007469Yan Zheng
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:13:10PM -0500, Chris Ball wrote: Hi, This patch (against experimental HEAD) attempts to make shrinking more robust, by only updating device size if weve succeeded

 
160626294901_529060007111Chris Ball
On Miércoles 25 Febrero 2009 23:55:08 Steven Pratt escribió: Unless I am missing something, what you are referring to is a simple wraping/alignment issue in the key on the long name