From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dkim2.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.54]:48185 "EHLO dkim2.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759111Ab3BMNbk (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:31:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com (unknown [10.101.1.160]) by dkim2.fusionio.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2879A0682 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:31:40 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:31:37 -0500 From: Chris Mason To: "Richard W.M. Jones" CC: Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: What can I do to make btrfs work? Message-ID: <20130213133137.GA21623@shiny.masoncoding.com> References: <20130212185449.GA16773@rhmail.home.annexia.org> <20130212191637.GD2611@localhost.localdomain> <20130212210535.GC16773@rhmail.home.annexia.org> <20130212214225.GM16687@shiny.masoncoding.com> <20130213110033.GA1543@rhmail.home.annexia.org> <20130213131044.GE16773@rhmail.home.annexia.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20130213131044.GE16773@rhmail.home.annexia.org> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:10:44AM -0700, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:00:33AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Will try the btrfsprogs patch next. > > I applied this patch: > > https://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=8fe354744cd7b5c4f7a3314dcdbb5095192a032f > > to the version of btrfs-progs in Fedora Rawhide (currently > "0.20.rc1.20121017git91d9eec"). Then I ran the simple reproducer, and > the full libguestfs test suite on two machines. > > This does appear to fix the problem for me, but only on Rawhide. > > On Fedora 18 which has an older kernel, the patch does not fix the > problem (same errors as before). > > Rawhide kernel: kernel-3.8.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc19.x86_64 > > Fedora 18 kernel: kernel-3.7.6-201.fc18.x86_64 > > Anyway, it's an improvement so I'll make sure the patch is added to > the Rawhide btrfs-progs package. Ok, the patch is more of a bandaid, but between running my vtest program and the patch helping, we're clearly not clearing caches properly (somehow). I'll take another stab at fixing this on the kernel side. -chris