Thanks for the patch, but I can still reproduce the problem. I've been
running the attached program to try to speed up the testing process a
bit. Interrupting and restarting the compilation loop also seems to
help.
If I had hours to wait, it would probably crash eventually without
additional encouragement, but I'm doing everything as an unprivileged
user, so I don't think my tests are unreasonable.
Anyway, I'm still getting a panic with debug enabled:
reiser4 panicked cowardly: reiser4[find(16411)]: reiser4_dirty_inode
(fs/reiser4/super_ops.c:173)[]:
Kernel panic - not syncing: reiser4[find(16411)]: reiser4_dirty_inode
(fs/reiser4/super_ops.c:173)[]:
Without debug enabled I've seen:
http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/20060718/messages1.txt.gz
http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/20060718/fsck1_--check.txt.gz
http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/20060718/fsck1_--fix.txt.gz
http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/20060718/fsck1_--check_after_--fix.txt.gz
but usually I get:
http://people.msoe.edu/~maciejej/patches/AMD64_reiser4_debug/20060718/messages3.txt.gz
with no corruption (although I've been rebooting before complete
failure).
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 21:38 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 18:10 +0400, Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Sun, 2006-07-16 at 12:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Has my previous post
> > > (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=115259665831650&w=2) been
> > > overlooked, or have I not provided enough information? Do I need to
> > > reproduce these issues on 2.6.18-rc1-mm2? Should I be trying any patches?
> > >
> >
>
> please try the attached patch.
>
> > your test crashes reiser4 on my test box. I hope to get a patch ready
> > later today. Not sure that I got the same problem as you, though. We
> > will see.
> >
> > > The bottom line is with 2.6.17-mm6, I've always been able to OOPs or panic
> > > reiser4 on my amd64 machine (haven't tried x86 yet) by using all available
> > > physical memory.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--
Jake Maciejewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
#include <sys/sysinfo.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <string.h>
#define MB 1048576
#define DEFAULT_SAVE 0
#define DELAY 10
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
struct sysinfo info;
size_t waste, save;
void *ptr;
sysinfo(&info);
if(argc>1)
save = atoi(argv[1])*MB;
else
save = DEFAULT_SAVE*MB;
if( save >= info.freeram ) {
fprintf(stderr, "error: only %iMB free\n", (int)info.freeram/MB);
return ENOMEM;
}
while(1) {
sysinfo(&info);
waste = (info.freeram-save)>0 ? info.freeram-save : 0;
ptr = malloc(waste);
if( ptr == 0 ) {
perror("malloc() failed\n");
return ENOMEM;
}
printf("reserving %iMB, wasting %iMB\n", (int)save/MB, (int)waste/MB);
memset(ptr, 0, waste);
sleep(DELAY);
free(ptr);
}
return 0;
}
