Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423298AbbEOAdf (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2015 20:33:35 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]:34973 "EHLO mail-ie0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423187AbbEOAdd (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2015 20:33:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 17:33:29 -0700 From: Omar Sandoval To: Josh Boyer Cc: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: btrfs balance 4.0 regression? Message-ID: <20150515003329.GA17120@mew> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2921 Lines: 70 On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:15:06AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Josh Boyer posted on Thu, 14 May 2015 08:43:25 -0400 as excerpted: > > > Hi Omar and Chris, > > > > We have a bug reported [1] against 4.0 saying that btrfs balance is > > broken. The reporter found a revert patch that Omar sent [2] to revert > > commit 2f0810880. Looking in Linus' latest tree, I don't see that > > revert and I don't immediately see a patch to fix the issue Omar > > reported either. > > > > Do either of you know if this is still an issue? If not, which commit > > was it fixed by? > > > > josh > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217191 > > [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6238111/ > > Still an issue, officially as of dev comments a day or two ago, at least. Yup, Chris says he has a proper fix but it hasn't hit the list yet. > From various comments including from Chris Mason directly, the devs are > aware of it, but (from a non-dev list-regular perspective) there's a > seeming reluctance to simply apply the revert patch. Not being a dev I > can't explain why tho I can speculate that the patch is logically correct > and simply triggers this other bug. But further patches have yet to > appear. > > Part of the problem may be a bit of confusion as some of the devs > evidently thought the revert patch fixed the problem and hadn't been > worrying about it until others pointed out the revert hadn't been applied > and the problem thus remained. > > So as of now, the choice appears to be broken balance-convert with the > current code, or broken ext*-convert with that patch reverted. Both > cases aren't entirely common, so I guess it's up to you which you want to > break ATM. Actually, ext4 convert is broken anyways (with irrelevant output elided): # mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/vdb # btrfs-convert /dev/vdb # mount /dev/vdb /mnt # btrfs fi df /mnt Data, single: total=2.64GiB, used=163.70MiB <- single System, single: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB <- single Metadata, single: total=1.33GiB, used=37.13MiB <- single GlobalReserve, single: total=16.00MiB, used=0.00B <- single # btrfs device add -f /dev/vdc /mnt # btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 /mnt Done, had to relocate 9 out of 9 chunks # btrfs fi df /mnt Data, single: total=832.00MiB, used=200.55MiB <- still single System, single: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB <- still single Metadata, single: total=256.00MiB, used=368.00KiB <- still single GlobalReserve, single: total=16.00MiB, used=0.00B <- still single So the balance succeeds unlike before the commit that caused the regression, but the profile is still single, which defeats the purpose. -- Omar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/