1. 11 4月, 2015 1 次提交
    • C
      Btrfs: allow block group cache writeout outside critical section in commit · 1bbc621e
      Chris Mason 提交于
      We loop through all of the dirty block groups during commit and write
      the free space cache.  In order to make sure the cache is currect, we do
      this while no other writers are allowed in the commit.
      
      If a large number of block groups are dirty, this can introduce long
      stalls during the final stages of the commit, which can block new procs
      trying to change the filesystem.
      
      This commit changes the block group cache writeout to take appropriate
      locks and allow it to run earlier in the commit.  We'll still have to
      redo some of the block groups, but it means we can get most of the work
      out of the way without blocking the entire FS.
      Signed-off-by: NChris Mason <clm@fb.com>
      1bbc621e
  2. 13 12月, 2014 2 次提交
  3. 04 10月, 2014 2 次提交
    • J
      Btrfs: fix build_backref_tree issue with multiple shared blocks · bbe90514
      Josef Bacik 提交于
      Marc Merlin sent me a broken fs image months ago where it would blow up in the
      upper->checked BUG_ON() in build_backref_tree.  This is because we had a
      scenario like this
      
      block a -- level 4 (not shared)
         |
      block b -- level 3 (reloc block, shared)
         |
      block c -- level 2 (not shared)
         |
      block d -- level 1 (shared)
         |
      block e -- level 0 (shared)
      
      We go to build a backref tree for block e, we notice block d is shared and add
      it to the list of blocks to lookup it's backrefs for.  Now when we loop around
      we will check edges for the block, so we will see we looked up block c last
      time.  So we lookup block d and then see that the block that points to it is
      block c and we can just skip that edge since we've already been up this path.
      The problem is because we clear need_check when we see block d (as it is shared)
      we never add block b as needing to be checked.  And because block c is in our
      path already we bail out before we walk up to block b and add it to the backref
      check list.
      
      To fix this we need to reset need_check if we trip over a block that doesn't
      need to be checked.  This will make sure that any subsequent blocks in the path
      as we're walking up afterwards are added to the list to be processed.  With this
      patch I can now mount Marc's fs image and it'll complete the balance without
      panicing.  Thanks,
      Reported-by: NMarc MERLIN <marc@merlins.org>
      Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
      Signed-off-by: NChris Mason <clm@fb.com>
      bbe90514
    • J
      Btrfs: cleanup error handling in build_backref_tree · 75bfb9af
      Josef Bacik 提交于
      When balance panics it tends to panic in the
      
      BUG_ON(!upper->checked);
      
      test, because it means it couldn't build the backref tree properly.  This is
      annoying to users and frankly a recoverable error, nothing in this function is
      actually fatal since it is just an in-memory building of the backrefs for a
      given bytenr.  So go through and change all the BUG_ON()'s to ASSERT()'s, and
      fix the BUG_ON(!upper->checked) thing to just return an error.
      
      This patch also fixes the error handling so it tears down the work we've done
      properly.  This code was horribly broken since we always just panic'ed instead
      of actually erroring out, so it needed to be completely re-worked.  With this
      patch my broken image no longer panics when I mount it.  Thanks,
      Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
      Signed-off-by: NChris Mason <clm@fb.com>
      75bfb9af
  4. 02 10月, 2014 4 次提交
  5. 18 9月, 2014 2 次提交
  6. 10 6月, 2014 2 次提交
  7. 07 4月, 2014 1 次提交
    • J
      Btrfs: do not reset last_snapshot after relocation · ba8b0289
      Josef Bacik 提交于
      This was done to allow NO_COW to continue to be NO_COW after relocation but it
      is not right.  When relocating we will convert blocks to FULL_BACKREF that we
      relocate.  We can leave some of these full backref blocks behind if they are not
      cow'ed out during the relocation, like if we fail the relocation with ENOSPC and
      then just drop the reloc tree.  Then when we go to cow the block again we won't
      lookup the extent flags because we won't think there has been a snapshot
      recently which means we will do our normal ref drop thing instead of adding back
      a tree ref and dropping the shared ref.  This will cause btrfs_free_extent to
      blow up because it can't find the ref we are trying to free.  This was found
      with my ref verifying tool.  Thanks,
      Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
      Signed-off-by: NChris Mason <clm@fb.com>
      ba8b0289
  8. 11 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  9. 29 1月, 2014 6 次提交
  10. 12 12月, 2013 3 次提交
  11. 12 11月, 2013 9 次提交
  12. 11 10月, 2013 1 次提交
    • M
      Btrfs: fix oops caused by the space balance and dead roots · c00869f1
      Miao Xie 提交于
      When doing space balance and subvolume destroy at the same time, we met
      the following oops:
      
      kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2247!
      RIP: 0010: [<ffffffffa04cec16>] prepare_to_merge+0x154/0x1f0 [btrfs]
      Call Trace:
       [<ffffffffa04b5ab7>] relocate_block_group+0x466/0x4e6 [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa04b5c7a>] btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x143/0x275 [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa0495c56>] btrfs_relocate_chunk.isra.27+0x5c/0x5a2 [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa0459871>] ? btrfs_item_key_to_cpu+0x15/0x31 [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa048b46a>] ? btrfs_get_token_64+0x7e/0xcd [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa04a3467>] ? btrfs_tree_read_unlock_blocking+0xb2/0xb7 [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa049907d>] btrfs_balance+0x9c7/0xb6f [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa049ef84>] btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x234/0x2ac [btrfs]
       [<ffffffffa04a1e8e>] btrfs_ioctl+0xd87/0x1ef9 [btrfs]
       [<ffffffff81122f53>] ? path_openat+0x234/0x4db
       [<ffffffff813c3b78>] ? __do_page_fault+0x31d/0x391
       [<ffffffff810f8ab6>] ? vma_link+0x74/0x94
       [<ffffffff811250f5>] vfs_ioctl+0x1d/0x39
       [<ffffffff811258c8>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x3e2
       [<ffffffff811259d4>] SyS_ioctl+0x57/0x83
       [<ffffffff813c3bfa>] ? do_page_fault+0xe/0x10
       [<ffffffff813c73c2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
      
      It is because we returned the error number if the reference of the root was 0
      when doing space relocation. It was not right here, because though the root
      was dead(refs == 0), but the space it held still need be relocated, or we
      could not remove the block group. So in this case, we should return the root
      no matter it is dead or not.
      Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      Signed-off-by: NChris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
      c00869f1
  13. 21 9月, 2013 2 次提交
  14. 01 9月, 2013 4 次提交