From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: liubo Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Balance progress monitoring (updated) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:51:25 +0800 Message-ID: <4CCF608D.8030706@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <20101030000726.286517546@carfax.org.uk> <20101030000741.689283553@carfax.org.uk> <20101030133934.GD9369@selene> <4CCE751D.6030204@cn.fujitsu.com> <20101101125510.GA4709@vlad.carfax.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: Hugo Mills , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101101125510.GA4709@vlad.carfax.org.uk> List-ID: On 11/01/2010 08:55 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 04:06:53PM +0800, liubo wrote: >> On 10/30/2010 09:39 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: >>> This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance >>> operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The >>> information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl. >>> >> IMO, tracking the information of blocks which are balancing also makes sense. >> For example, the block information's blocknr. >> It can help us monitor better. > > I don't see how that will help. The block group IDs (which is all > that we get at this level) are effectively arbitrary 64-bit numbers, > and are what appear in the kernel logs. How could that information be > used to improve monitoring? 64-bit numbers are also shown in btrfs-debug-tree. With btrfs-debug-tree, it would be helpful to track balanced extent buffers. thanks, liubo > > I'm not ruling out the idea completely -- I just can't see at the > moment how it would be used. > > Hugo. >