From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:4191 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751489AbaBXHUq (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:20:46 -0500 Message-ID: <530AF25B.5050004@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:18:51 +0800 From: Wang Shilong MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc MERLIN CC: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 3.13.5 kernel hangs some processes with btrfs References: <20140224061426.GB15937@merlins.org> <20140224061714.GC15937@merlins.org> <20140224065847.GE15937@merlins.org> In-Reply-To: <20140224065847.GE15937@merlins.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/24/2014 02:58 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 06:42:30AM +0000, Duncan wrote: >> I believe there's a fix coming (a cancel that blows away the tracking >> file if it finds it and no actual running scrub is the most obvious fix), >> but meanwhile, see the /var/lib/btrfs/scrub.status.* files. That's where >> scrub state is stored, and manually blowing away the appropriate file >> should clear btrfs' memory of the aborted scrub, so you can scrub start >> properly. > Ah, silly me, I thought this was all in the kernel and not in userspace. > > Yep, I cleared the stats, and that part is back to ok, thanks. > > I'm not getting btrfs hang on /mnt/btrfs_pool2 after reboot, so that's good. > > But I'm still seeing these, albeit less often. > Any idea what they could be linked to? > (I have a btrs send/receive going right now, it could hanging /mnt/btrfs_pool1 I noticed scrub for /mnt/btrfs_pool1 is running more than 10000s.... Not sure if it is related to send/receive, but if you are still runing send/receive, just terminate it and let's see if things will become better. Also Josef gave a patch that can speed up send/receive a lot which has been pused into btrfs-next, you can try it. Thanks, Wang > in a way that affects smbd, but the array feels ok otherwise, weird...) >