On 2020/4/14 下午3:09, jakub nantl wrote: > On 15. 01. 20 4:26, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> And due to another bug in balance canceling, we can't cancel it. >> >> For the unable to cancel part, there are patches to address it, and >> would get upstream in v5.6 release. > > Hello, > > looks like balance canceling is still not 100% in 5.6.x: > > > # btrfs balance status /data/ > Balance on '/data/' is running, cancel requested > 0 out of about 16 chunks balanced (9 considered), 100% left > > > Apr 13 23:30:52 sopa kernel: [ 6983.625318] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > balance: start -dusage=100,limit=16 > Apr 13 23:30:52 sopa kernel: [ 6983.627286] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > relocating block group 5572244013056 flags data|raid1 > Apr 13 23:31:05 sopa kernel: [ 6996.237814] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > relocating block group 5569073119232 flags data|raid1 > Apr 13 23:31:40 sopa kernel: [ 7032.178175] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: move data extents > Apr 13 23:31:46 sopa kernel: [ 7037.711119] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Apr 13 23:31:49 sopa kernel: [ 7040.767052] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Apr 13 23:32:00 sopa kernel: [ 7051.885977] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > .. > > .. > > Apr 14 06:26:06 sopa kernel: [31897.468487] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Apr 14 06:26:08 sopa kernel: [31900.034563] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Apr 14 06:26:10 sopa kernel: [31901.719655] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Apr 14 06:26:12 sopa kernel: [31903.334506] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Apr 14 06:26:12 sopa kernel: [31903.856791] BTRFS info (device dm-0): > found 17 extents, stage: update data pointers > Thanks for the report, this means one of my original patch is still needed. And since that patch failed to pass review where I can't explain under which case that can happen. Now it has been proven that we still need that one. And let me check under which condition that happened. Thanks, Qu > > Linux sopa 5.6.4-050604-generic #202004131234 SMP Mon Apr 13 12:36:46 > UTC 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > # btrfs fi us /data/ > Overall: > Device size: 3.71TiB > Device allocated: 3.71TiB > Device unallocated: 2.00MiB > Device missing: 0.00B > Used: 3.30TiB > Free (estimated): 209.16GiB (min: 209.16GiB) > Data ratio: 2.00 > Metadata ratio: 2.00 > Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B) > > Data,RAID1: Size:1.85TiB, Used:1.64TiB > /dev/mapper/sopa-data 1.85TiB > /dev/sdb3 1.85TiB > > Metadata,RAID1: Size:6.11GiB, Used:4.77GiB > /dev/mapper/sopa-data 6.11GiB > /dev/sdb3 6.11GiB > > System,RAID1: Size:32.00MiB, Used:304.00KiB > /dev/mapper/sopa-data 32.00MiB > /dev/sdb3 32.00MiB > > Unallocated: > /dev/mapper/sopa-data 1.00MiB > /dev/sdb3 1.00MiB > > # btrfs fi show /data/ > Label: 'SOPADATA' uuid: 37b8a62c-68e8-44e4-a3b2-eb572385c3e8 > Total devices 2 FS bytes used 1.65TiB > devid 1 size 1.86TiB used 1.85TiB path /dev/mapper/sopa-data > devid 2 size 1.86TiB used 1.85TiB path /dev/sdb3 > > jn >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
