All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com>
To: Sven Oehme <oehmes@gmail.com>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: Host managed SMR drive issue
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 07:10:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210928071002.jzm7e6ndm2qh6x4o@naota-xeon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALssuR0D9r5_rXWsL1Qt4ouFdUQdrYY_VL2KMaNJ442bqHREsQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 05:36:55PM -0600, Sven Oehme wrote:
> I should add that the copy process starts and runs for a while, but
> then stalls. The last 2 times I started over from scratch it stalls at
> around 200 GB, so ~ 1-2 files into the copy process.

Thank you for the detailed info. I'm also working on to reproduce the
issue.

BTW, how is the memory usage at the hung time? Can I have "free -m"
output?

> Sven
> 
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:34 PM Sven Oehme <oehmes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > the workload is as simple as one can imagine :
> >
> > scp -rp /space/01/ /space/20/
> > where space/01 is a ext4 filesystem with several >100gb files in it,
> > /space/20 is the btrfs destination
> >
> > its single threaded , nothing special
> >
> > Sven
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:31 PM Damien Le Moal
> > <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2021/09/28 8:17, Sven Oehme wrote:
> > > > yes i do :
> > > >
> > > > root@01:~# cat  /sys/kernel/debug/block/sdr/hctx0/queued
> > > > 3760
> > >
> > > Can you give more information on the workload ? How can we recreate this ?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:01 PM Damien Le Moal
> > > > <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2021/09/28 7:56, Sven Oehme wrote:
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> i tried above  :
> > > >>>
> > > >>> root@01:~# cat  /sys/kernel/debug/block/sdr/hctx0/dispatched
> > > >>>        0        89
> > > >>>        1        1462
> > > >>>        2        1
> > > >>>        4        574
> > > >>>        8        0
> > > >>>       16        0
> > > >>>       32+       0
> > > >>> root@01:~# cat  /sys/kernel/debug/block/sdr/hctx0/dispatch
> > > >>> root@01:~# cat  /sys/kernel/debug/block/sdr/hctx0/dispatched
> > > >>>        0        89
> > > >>>        1        1462
> > > >>>        2        1
> > > >>>        4        574
> > > >>>        8        0
> > > >>>       16        0
> > > >>>       32+       0
> > > >>> root@01:~# cat  /sys/kernel/debug/block/sdr/hctx0/dispatch_busy
> > > >>> 0
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you have the queued count too ? If there is a difference with dispatch, it
> > > >> would mean that some IOs are stuck in the stack.
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/block/sdr/hctx0/run
> > > >>>
> > > >>> doesn't make any progress, still no i/o to the drive
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sven
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:48 PM Damien Le Moal
> > > >>> <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 2021/09/28 7:38, Sven Oehme wrote:
> > > >>>>> i tried to repeat the test with FW19, same result :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The problem is likely not rooted with the HBA fw version.
> > > >>>> How do you create the problem ? Is it an fio script you are running ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021] INFO: task btrfs-transacti:4206 blocked for
> > > >>>>> more than 604 seconds.
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]       Not tainted 5.14-test #1
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021] "echo 0 >
> > > >>>>> /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021] task:btrfs-transacti state:D stack:    0
> > > >>>>> pid: 4206 ppid:     2 flags:0x00004000
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021] Call Trace:
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  __schedule+0x2fa/0x910
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  schedule+0x4f/0xc0
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  io_schedule+0x46/0x70
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  blk_mq_get_tag+0x11b/0x270
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  __blk_mq_alloc_request+0xec/0x120
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  blk_mq_submit_bio+0x12f/0x580
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  submit_bio_noacct+0x42a/0x4f0
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  submit_bio+0x4f/0x1b0
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btrfs_map_bio+0x1a3/0x4c0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btrfs_submit_metadata_bio+0x10f/0x170 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  submit_one_bio+0x67/0x80 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btree_write_cache_pages+0x6e8/0x770 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btree_writepages+0x5f/0x70 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  do_writepages+0x38/0xc0
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0xcc/0x110
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  filemap_fdatawrite_range+0x13/0x20
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btrfs_write_marked_extents+0x66/0x140 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btrfs_write_and_wait_transaction+0x49/0xd0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  btrfs_commit_transaction+0x6b0/0xaa0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  ? start_transaction+0xcf/0x5a0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  transaction_kthread+0x138/0x1b0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  kthread+0x12f/0x150
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  ?
> > > >>>>> btrfs_cleanup_transaction.isra.0+0x560/0x560 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x70/0x70
> > > >>>>> [Mon Sep 27 15:41:22 2021]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> if you tell me what information to collect, I am happy to do so,.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The stack seems to point to a "hang" in the block layer so btrfs side waits forever.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> When you get the hang, can you check the queued and dispatch counters in
> > > >>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/<your disk>/hctx0 ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Once you have the numbers, try:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/block/<your disk>/hctx0/run
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> to see if the drive gets unstuck.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sven
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:28 AM Sven Oehme <oehmes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I also have an  Adaptec HBA 1100-4i at FW level 4.11 (latest) , which
> > > >>>>>> according to https://ask.adaptec.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17472 is
> > > >>>>>> supported but see the exact same hangs after a few minutes ...
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> what i see in dmesg is :
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021] INFO: task kworker/u102:6:190092 blocked
> > > >>>>>> for more than 120 seconds.
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]       Not tainted 5.14-test #1
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021] "echo 0 >
> > > >>>>>> /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021] task:kworker/u102:6  state:D stack:    0
> > > >>>>>> pid:190092 ppid:     2 flags:0x00004000
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021] Workqueue: btrfs-worker-high
> > > >>>>>> btrfs_work_helper [btrfs]
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021] Call Trace:
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  __schedule+0x2fa/0x910
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  schedule+0x4f/0xc0
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  io_schedule+0x46/0x70
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  blk_mq_get_tag+0x11b/0x270
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  __blk_mq_alloc_request+0xec/0x120
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  blk_mq_submit_bio+0x12f/0x580
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  submit_bio_noacct+0x42a/0x4f0
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  submit_bio+0x4f/0x1b0
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  btrfs_map_bio+0x1a3/0x4c0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  run_one_async_done+0x3b/0x70 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  btrfs_work_helper+0x132/0x2e0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  process_one_work+0x220/0x3c0
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  worker_thread+0x53/0x420
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  kthread+0x12f/0x150
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  ? process_one_work+0x3c0/0x3c0
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x70/0x70
> > > >>>>>> [Mon Sep 27 11:20:03 2021]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> i will also downgrade the LSI adapter to FW 19, but i think this is
> > > >>>>>> unrelated to the FW as i can see this with 2 completely different
> > > >>>>>> HBA's and 2 completely different drives.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sven
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sven
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 5:19 PM Damien Le Moal
> > > >>>>>> <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 2021/09/25 3:25, Sven Oehme wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> i am running into issues with Host Managed SMR drive testing. when i
> > > >>>>>>>> try to copy or move a file to the btrfs filesystem it just hangs. i
> > > >>>>>>>> tried multiple 5.12,5.13 as well as 5.14 all the way to 5.14.6 but the
> > > >>>>>>>> issue still persists.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> here is the setup :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I am using btrfs-progs-v5.14.1
> > > >>>>>>>> device is a  Host Managed WDC  20TB SMR drive with firmware level C421
> > > >>>>>>>> its connected via a HBA 9400-8i Tri-Mode Storage Adapter , latest 20.0 FW
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Beware of the Broadcom FW rev 20. We found problems with it: very slow zone
> > > >>>>>>> command scheduling leading to command timeout is some cases. FW 19 does not seem
> > > >>>>>>> to have this issue. But that is likely not the cause of the problem here.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Is there anything of interest in dmesg ? Any IO errors ?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Naohiro, Johannes,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Any idea ?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I am using the /dev/sd device direct  , no lvm or device mapper or
> > > >>>>>>>> anything else in between
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> after a few seconds, sometimes minutes data rate to the drive drops to
> > > >>>>>>>> 0 and 1 or 2 cores on my system show 100% IO wait time, but no longer
> > > >>>>>>>> make any progress
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> the process in question has the following stack :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589160] task:mv              state:D stack:    0 pid: 3814
> > > >>>>>>>> ppid:  3679 flags:0x00004000
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589162] Call Trace:
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589163]  __schedule+0x2fa/0x910
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589166]  schedule+0x4f/0xc0
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589168]  schedule_timeout+0x8a/0x140
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589171]  ? __bpf_trace_tick_stop+0x10/0x10
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589173]  io_schedule_timeout+0x51/0x80
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589176]  balance_dirty_pages+0x2fa/0xe30
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589179]  ? __mod_lruvec_state+0x3a/0x50
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589182]  balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited+0x2f9/0x3c0
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589185]  btrfs_buffered_write+0x58e/0x7e0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589226]  btrfs_file_write_iter+0x138/0x3e0 [btrfs]
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589260]  ? ext4_file_read_iter+0x5b/0x180
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589262]  new_sync_write+0x114/0x1a0
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589265]  vfs_write+0x1c5/0x260
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589267]  ksys_write+0x67/0xe0
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589270]  __x64_sys_write+0x1a/0x20
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589272]  do_syscall_64+0x40/0xb0
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589275]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589277] RIP: 0033:0x7ffff7e91c27
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589278] RSP: 002b:00007fffffffdc48 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX:
> > > >>>>>>>> 0000000000000001
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589280] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000020000 RCX: 00007ffff7e91c27
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589281] RDX: 0000000000020000 RSI: 00007ffff79bd000 RDI: 0000000000000004
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589282] RBP: 00007ffff79bd000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589283] R10: 0000000000000022 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000004
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.589284] R13: 0000000000000004 R14: 00007ffff79bd000 R15: 0000000000020000
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> and shows up under runnable tasks :
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593562] runnable tasks:
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593562]  S            task   PID         tree-key  switches
> > > >>>>>>>> prio     wait-time             sum-exec        sum-sleep
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593563] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593565]  S        cpuhp/13    92     88923.802487        19
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000         0.292061         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593571]  S  idle_inject/13    93       -11.997255         3
> > > >>>>>>>> 49         0.000000         0.005480         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593577]  S    migration/13    94       814.287531       551
> > > >>>>>>>> 0         0.000000      1015.550514         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593582]  S    ksoftirqd/13    95     88762.317130        44
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000         1.940252         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593588]  I    kworker/13:0    96        -9.031157         5
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000         0.017423         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593593]  I   kworker/13:0H    97      3570.961886         5
> > > >>>>>>>> 100         0.000000         0.034345         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593603]  I    kworker/13:1   400    101650.731913       578
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000        10.110898         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593611]  I   kworker/13:1H  1015    101649.600698        65
> > > >>>>>>>> 100         0.000000         1.443300         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593618]  S           loop3  1994     99133.655903        70
> > > >>>>>>>> 100         0.000000         1.137468         0.000000 2 0 /
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593625]  S           snapd  3161        15.296181       166
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000        90.296991         0.000000 2 0
> > > >>>>>>>> /system.slice/snapd.service
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593631]  S           snapd  3198        10.047573        49
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000         5.646247         0.000000 2 0
> > > >>>>>>>> /system.slice/snapd.service
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593639]  S            java  2446       970.743682       301
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000       101.648659         0.000000 2 0
> > > >>>>>>>> /system.slice/stor_tomcat.service
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593645]  S C1 CompilerThre  2573      1033.157689      3636
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000       615.256247         0.000000 2 0
> > > >>>>>>>> /system.slice/stor_tomcat.service
> > > >>>>>>>> [ 2168.593654]  D              mv  3814      2263.816953    186734
> > > >>>>>>>> 120         0.000000     30087.917319         0.000000 2 0 /user.slice
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> any idea what is going on and how to fix this ?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> thx.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>> Damien Le Moal
> > > >>>>>>> Western Digital Research
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Damien Le Moal
> > > >>>> Western Digital Research
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Damien Le Moal
> > > >> Western Digital Research
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Damien Le Moal
> > > Western Digital Research

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-09-28  7:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-24 18:25 Host managed SMR drive issue Sven Oehme
2021-09-26 23:19 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-09-27 17:28   ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 22:36     ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 22:38     ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 22:48       ` Damien Le Moal
2021-09-27 22:56         ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 23:01           ` Damien Le Moal
2021-09-27 23:17             ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 23:31               ` Damien Le Moal
2021-09-27 23:34                 ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 23:36                   ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-27 23:38                     ` Damien Le Moal
2021-09-27 23:51                       ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-28  7:10                     ` Naohiro Aota [this message]
2021-09-28 11:49                       ` Sven Oehme
2021-09-30  9:55                         ` Johannes Thumshirn
     [not found]                           ` <CALssuR1wcChWwLt1wVoxhf=ufWdKtBHa7FXn-m9mkJcpPGbfOg@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]                             ` <PH0PR04MB7416408BFBD494211A4D86B69BAA9@PH0PR04MB7416.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
     [not found]                               ` <CALssuR1JZqaBLf_aCMRLm683cww66wc_p+hgCpCENMiQkVoSRg@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]                                 ` <20211006154828.bqiwik2b6jaqxcck@naota-xeon>
     [not found]                                   ` <CALssuR3UeNmx0PnwUT8ZR0bOd9iAGjvgmv9u8yfHDnfpChKb2w@mail.gmail.com>
     [not found]                                     ` <20211007032239.iwrtygcavadvvb62@naota-xeon>
     [not found]                                       ` <CH0PR14MB50764AC8659E9378C65D6DE8F4B19@CH0PR14MB5076.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
2021-10-11  6:32                                         ` Johannes Thumshirn
2021-10-11 10:23                                           ` David Sterba
2021-10-11 10:28                                             ` Johannes Thumshirn
2021-10-11 13:06                                               ` David Sterba
2021-09-28  6:36                   ` Johannes Thumshirn
2021-09-29 10:29                     ` Johannes Thumshirn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210928071002.jzm7e6ndm2qh6x4o@naota-xeon \
    --to=naohiro.aota@wdc.com \
    --cc=Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com \
    --cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oehmes@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.