@@ -9386,15 +9386,23 @@ int btrfs_can_relocate(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 bytenr)
u64 dev_min = 1;
u64 dev_nr = 0;
u64 target;
+ int debug;
int index;
int full = 0;
int ret = 0;
+ debug = btrfs_test_opt(root, ENOSPC_DEBUG);
+
block_group = btrfs_lookup_block_group(root->fs_info, bytenr);
/* odd, couldn't find the block group, leave it alone */
- if (!block_group)
+ if (!block_group) {
+ if (debug)
+ btrfs_warn(root->fs_info,
+ "can't find block group for bytenr %llu",
+ bytenr);
return -1;
+ }
min_free = btrfs_block_group_used(&block_group->item);
@@ -9448,8 +9456,13 @@ int btrfs_can_relocate(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 bytenr)
* this is just a balance, so if we were marked as full
* we know there is no space for a new chunk
*/
- if (full)
+ if (full) {
+ if (debug)
+ btrfs_warn(root->fs_info,
+ "no space to alloc new chunk for block group %llu",
+ block_group->key.objectid);
goto out;
+ }
index = get_block_group_index(block_group);
}
@@ -9496,6 +9509,10 @@ int btrfs_can_relocate(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 bytenr)
ret = -1;
}
}
+ if (debug && ret == -1)
+ btrfs_warn(root->fs_info,
+ "no space to allocate a new chunk for block group %llu",
+ block_group->key.objectid);
mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->chunk_mutex);
btrfs_end_transaction(trans, root);
out:
As one user in mail list report reproducible balance ENOSPC error, it's better to add more debug info for enospc_debug mount option. Reported-by: Marc Haber <mh+linux-btrfs@zugschlus.de> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> --- changelog: v2: Add output for block group bytenr --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)