On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Marc Haber [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 01:43:50PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Marc Haber
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 12:34:09PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:

quoted

Something is happening with the usage of this file system that's out
of the ordinary. This is the first time I've seen such a large amount
of unused metadata allocation. And then for it not only fail to
balance, but for the allocation amount to increase is a first. So
understanding the usage is important to figuring out what's happening.
I'd file a bug and include as much information on how the fs got into
this state as possible. And also if possible make a btrfs-image using
the proper flags to blot out the filenames for privacy. And what
btrfs-progs tools were used to create this file system. Etc.

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114451

Please advise if there is something missing.

No enospc_debug mount option used for kernel messages.

I apologize for not having this mentioned, but why do you think that
it wasn't active?

No additional information in the log attached to the bug. So I guess
this particular problem doesn't trigger any enospc debug options and
hence the patch.

|[28/527]mh@fan:~$ grep enospc /proc/mounts
|/dev/mapper/fanbtr / btrfs rw,noatime,nodiratime,ssd,space_cache,enospc_debug,subvolid=257,subvol=/fan-root 0 0
|/dev/mapper/fanbtr /mnt/snapshots/fanbtr btrfs rw,noatime,nodiratime,ssd,space_cache,enospc_debug,subvolid=266,subvol=/snapshots 0 0
|[29/528]mh@fan:~$

quoted

 And no indication you applied Qu's patch mentioned on March 1 to get
 more info with enospc_debug mount:

quoted

Oh, I'm sorry that the output is not necessary, it's better to use the newer patch:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8462881/
With the newer patch, you will need to use enospc_debug mount option to get the debug information.

That one didn't make it in 4.4.5 yet?

I got no indication it was even going to make it into mainline
actually, I was thinking it was a one off patch. But if it does, it'll
need to be in 4.5.0 before it'd be backported to 4.4.x. Maybe Qu can
clarify?

-- 
Chris Murphy