On 9/30/07, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Torsten Kaiser wrote: > > What I find kind of interessing is, that while I got three different > > error codes the cmd part of the output was always the same. > > That's NCQ write command. You'll be using it a lot if you're rebuilding > md5.
It's not rebuilding the RAID at that point. If one drive fails, I reboot into a "safe" kernel, fix the RAID and that way try the next boot with a clean RAID again. The error happens when the RAID is initialized, might be the first write into the superblock to mark it dirty/inuse that triggers the error. > It seems like something is going wrong with request DMA or sg > mapping. Maybe some change in block/*.[hc]? The sg-chaining-patch stands out, but I have no conclusive proof that it really is the cause. As noted in this thread, a long time I thought that rc7 with the sg-chaining-patch was safe, but one time it also showed the error. > > It's not just 2.6.23-rc4-mm1. All -mm's after rc4 are broken for me. > > Confirmed breakage on -rc4-mm1, -rc6-mm1 and -rc8-mm1. I'm just > > narrowing on rc4-mm1 because that was the first version to break. > > > > I'm currently trying to bisect 2.6.23-rc4-mm1. Here is the current status: > > Have you tested 2.6.23-rc4 without mm patches? It could be something > introduced between -rc3 and 4. Not directly, but I have 4 good boots with one part of the mm-patches. So I would tend to say that mainline 2.6.23-rc4 does not have this bug. > > [the 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 series-file has 2013 lines] > > Up to (incl.) x86_64-convert-to-clockevents.patch (line 747): 2 good boots > > Up to (incl.) x86_64-cleanup-struct-irqaction-initializers-patch > > (line779): 2 good boots > > Up to (incl.) slub-optimize-cacheline-use-for-zeroing.patch (line > > 1045): 1 failed > > Up to (incl.) fix-discrepancy-between-vdso-based... (line1461): 1 good, 1 > > failed > > > > Next try: up to patch fs-remove-some-aop_truncated_page.patch Looks more like this is OK too. > > That means from the patches added to the rc4 variant of the mm-kernel > > the following are remaining: [snip] > > memoryless-nodes-add-n_cpu-node-state-move-setup-of-n_cpu-node-state-mask.patch > > memoryless-nodes-fixup-uses-of-node_online_map-in-generic-code-fix.patch > > memoryless-nodes-fixup-uses-of-node_online_map-in-generic-code-fix-2.patch > > update-n_high_memory-node-state-for-memory-hotadd.patch > > slub-avoid-page-struct-cacheline-bouncing-due-to-remote-frees-to-cpu-slab.patch > > slub-do-not-use-page-mapping.patch > > slub-move-page-offset-to-kmem_cache_cpu-offset.patch > > slub-avoid-touching-page-struct-when-freeing-to-per-cpu-slab.patch > > slub-place-kmem_cache_cpu-structures-in-a-numa-aware-way.patch > > slub-optimize-cacheline-use-for-zeroing.patch > > > > But due to the unreliable nature of the bug, I can't be to sure about that. > > Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. Bisection is extremely difficult > if errors are intermittent and takes long time to reproduce. Yes... As for the remaining patches: memoryless-nodes-* Don't think so: I do have a NUMA system, but both nodes have memory. flush-cache-before-* Don't think so: No ia64 system, unchanged from rc3 # grouping pages by mobility patches ... no idee, but seem unchanged maps2.* Don't think that related... remaining slub-* patches Might be... As for you printk: >From two goot boots, I had not had any failures with it: First one: Sep 30 19:24:53 treogen [ 3.810000] XXX sil24 cb=ffff810037ef0000 cb_dma=37ef0000 Sep 30 19:24:53 treogen [ 3.820000] XXX sil24 cb=ffff810037f00000 cb_dma=37f00000 Second: Sep 30 20:06:22 treogen [ 3.820000] XXX sil24 cb=ffff810037f00000 cb_dma=37f00000 Sep 30 20:06:22 treogen [ 3.830000] XXX sil24 cb=ffff810037f10000 cb_dma=37f10000 Torsten - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/