On Jan 4, 2008 4:21 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 2:30 PM, Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- above git-nfsd and git-net tests should be probably repeated with
-rc6-mm1 git versions: so vanilla rc6 plus both these -mm patches
only, and if bug triggers
On Jan 2, 2008 10:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > The two specific trees of interest would be git-nfsd and git-net.
>
> Also, if it's git-nfsd, it'd be useful to test with the current git-nfsd
> from the for-mm
On Jan 2, 2008 10:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
The two specific trees of interest would be git-nfsd and git-net.
Also, if it's git-nfsd, it'd be useful to test with the current git-nfsd
from the for-mm branch at:
On Jan 2, 2008 10:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:29:59PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > >
> > > Vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 seems stable. I did not see any cra
On Jan 2, 2008 10:12 PM, Russell Leidich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 12:00 PM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:43:08AM -0800, Russell Leidich wrote:
> > > likelihood, will extend to some future CPUs). Indeed, as far as my
> > > testing has
On Jan 2, 2008 9:51 PM, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>
> > I just tested something with vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 and had the same problem.
> > Should this patch, or something similar be included for 2.6.24?
>
> Su
CC's somewhat trimmed...
On Nov 18, 2007 12:00 AM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:09:46PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly lockdep does not work for me, as it gets t
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, I suspect the cause of your problem is that somebody
> somewhere is doing a double-free on an skb.
>
> Since you're the only person who can reproduce this, we really need
> your help to track this down. Since bisecting
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, I suspect the cause of your problem is that somebody
somewhere is doing a double-free on an skb.
Since you're the only person who can reproduce this, we really need
your help to track this down. Since bisecting the mm
CC's somewhat trimmed...
On Nov 18, 2007 12:00 AM, root [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:09:46PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sadly lockdep does not work for me, as it gets turned off early:
[ 39.851594
On Jan 2, 2008 9:51 PM, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
I just tested something with vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 and had the same problem.
Should this patch, or something similar be included for 2.6.24?
Such a patch is in Andrew's tree.
2.6.24
On Jan 2, 2008 10:12 PM, Russell Leidich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 12:00 PM, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 11:43:08AM -0800, Russell Leidich wrote:
likelihood, will extend to some future CPUs). Indeed, as far as my
testing has determined, there
On Jan 2, 2008 10:57 PM, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 08:51:54AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:29:59PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
Vanilla 2.6.24-rc6 seems stable. I did not see any crash or warnings.
OK that's great
On Jan 1, 2008 1:59 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:15:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > >
> > > I then tried to "fix" it with this susp
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:15:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> >
> > I then tried to "fix" it with this suspect.
> > I changed "skb_release_all(dst);" back to "skb_relea
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:15:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
I then tried to fix it with this suspect.
I changed skb_release_all(dst); back to skb_release_data(dst); in
skb_morph() (net/core/skbuff.c).
Check /proc/net/snmp
On Jan 1, 2008 1:59 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 1, 2008 1:04 PM, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:15:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
I then tried to fix it with this suspect.
I changed skb_release_all(dst); back to skb_release_data
On Dec 30, 2007 4:34 AM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 2:30 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The cause, why I am resending this:
On Dec 31, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 31 December 2007 17:38:03 Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100
> > "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > a) this could be
On Dec 31, 2007 5:01 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd say the practical advantage to the user would be almost zero.
> > Which distribution is going to enable this option and defacto
> > banning external modules?
>
> It would be a real nuisance for developing code let alone for using
On Dec 31, 2007 4:59 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 31 December 2007 16:55:57 Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
> > Shouldn't it be possible to garbage collect th
On Dec 31, 2007 3:42 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With CONFIG_MODULES=y the 13 EXPORT_SYMBOL's that only exist for the
> theoretical possibility of CONIG_UNIX=m waste a few hundred bytes
> of memory.
One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted
On Dec 30, 2007 10:35 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2007 10:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Tom Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:07:17 -0600
> >
> > Bruce/Aime:
On Dec 30, 2007 10:57 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > what's exactly in the hibernation image? Dirty data i suppose
> >
> > No, everything, including the kernel code, page tables etc. :-)
> >
> > > - but what about
On Dec 30, 2007 10:57 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what's exactly in the hibernation image? Dirty data i suppose
No, everything, including the kernel code, page tables etc. :-)
- but what about kernel-internal pages. What if
On Dec 30, 2007 10:35 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 10:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Tom Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:07:17 -0600
Bruce/Aime:
Here is what I believe to be the fix for the crashes/svc_xprt
On Dec 31, 2007 3:42 PM, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With CONFIG_MODULES=y the 13 EXPORT_SYMBOL's that only exist for the
theoretical possibility of CONIG_UNIX=m waste a few hundred bytes
of memory.
One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted
EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
On Dec 31, 2007 4:59 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 16:55:57 Torsten Kaiser wrote:
One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted
EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
Shouldn't it be possible to garbage collect these?
depmod already contains code
On Dec 31, 2007 5:01 PM, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say the practical advantage to the user would be almost zero.
Which distribution is going to enable this option and defacto
banning external modules?
It would be a real nuisance for developing code let alone for using it.
On Dec 31, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 31 December 2007 17:38:03 Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100
Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) this could be disabled during development if you want this
b) this would even only affect
On Dec 30, 2007 4:34 AM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 2:30 AM, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
The cause, why I am resending this: I just got a crash with
2.6.24-rc6-mm1, again looking
On Dec 30, 2007 10:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On
On Dec 30, 2007 10:24 PM, J. Bruce Fields [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23
On Dec 30, 2007 2:30 AM, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> >
> > > > The cause, why I am resending this: I just got a crash with
> > > > 2.6.24-rc6-mm1, again looking network related:
On Dec 29, 2007 12:07 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > [ 7620.708561] Pid: 5698,
On Dec 29, 2007 12:07 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:53:49 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
[ 7620.708561] Pid: 5698, comm: nfsv4-svc Not tainted 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 #2
[snip
On Dec 30, 2007 2:30 AM, Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 05:51:13PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
The cause, why I am resending this: I just got a crash with
2.6.24-rc6-mm1, again looking network related:
[93436.933356] WARNING: at include/net/dst.h
On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc6/2.6.24-rc6-mm1/
> I have finally given up on using
On Dec 23, 2007 5:27 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc6/2.6.24-rc6-mm1/
I have finally given up on using 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 with slub_debug=FZP
[author CCed]
On Dec 27, 2007 12:42 PM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2007 9:39 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:27:12 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> &g
On Dec 23, 2007 9:39 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:27:12 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
[author CCed]
On Dec 27, 2007 12:42 PM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 9:39 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:27:12 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Dec 23, 2007 9:39 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:27:12 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc6/2.6.24-rc6
On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc6/2.6.24-rc6-mm1/
[snip]
> +agk-dm-dm-snapshot-use-uninitialized_var.patch
> +agk-dm-dm-raid1-handle-write-failures.patch
>
On Dec 23, 2007 8:30 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc6/2.6.24-rc6-mm1/
[snip]
+agk-dm-dm-snapshot-use-uninitialized_var.patch
+agk-dm-dm-raid1-handle-write-failures.patch
On Nov 29, 2007 10:07 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:58:16 +0100
> "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But after ~1h of usage I got two different crashes on my x86_64 box.
>
> Nice, thanks. By finding
On Nov 29, 2007 10:07 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:58:16 +0100
Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But after ~1h of usage I got two different crashes on my x86_64 box.
Nice, thanks. By finding these now you (hopefully) saved a whole lot of
people
On Nov 28, 2007 12:41 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc3/2.6.24-rc3-mm2/
>
> - All patches against subsystem trees were recently sent to the relevant
> maintainers. Many (probably most) were ignored. I don't
On Nov 28, 2007 12:41 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc3/2.6.24-rc3-mm2/
- All patches against subsystem trees were recently sent to the relevant
maintainers. Many (probably most) were ignored. I don't know
ot
triggered on every boot, this can't prove anything.
But if it happens again, I will notify you.
Torsten
> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> >
> > static inline int in_range(const void *start, const void *addr, const void
> > *end)
> > {
> > return addr >= start
on every boot, this can't prove anything.
But if it happens again, I will notify you.
Torsten
Torsten Kaiser wrote:
static inline int in_range(const void *start, const void *addr, const void
*end)
{
return addr = start addr = end;
}
This will return true, if addr
On Nov 24, 2007 4:49 AM, Alasdair G Kergon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:42:36PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > ... or I just don't see the bug.
>
> See my earlier post in this thread: there's a race in the write loop
> where a work st
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > Above this acquire/release
On Nov 20, 2007 7:55 AM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please could you try which patch from the dm-crypt series cause this ?
> > (agk-dm-dm-crypt* names.)
> >
> > I susp
On Nov 24, 2007 4:49 AM, Alasdair G Kergon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:42:36PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
... or I just don't see the bug.
See my earlier post in this thread: there's a race in the write loop
where a work struct could be used twice on the same queue
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torsten Kaiser wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Above this acquire/release sequence is the following comment:
#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
On Nov 20, 2007 7:55 AM, Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please could you try which patch from the dm-crypt series cause this ?
(agk-dm-dm-crypt* names.)
I suspect agk-dm-dm-crypt-move-bio-submission-to-thread.patch
On Nov 21, 2007 8:22 PM, Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:41:23 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
> > > ACPI: Core revision 20070126
> > >
On Nov 21, 2007 10:29 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:52:26 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:41:23 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> ACPI: Core revision
On Nov 21, 2007 10:29 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:52:26 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:41:23 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ACPI: Core revision 20070126
..MP-BIOS
On Nov 21, 2007 8:22 PM, Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:41:23 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
ACPI: Core revision 20070126
..MP-BIOS bug: 8254
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > Anything I could try, apart from more boots with slub_debug=F?
One time it triggered with slub_debug=F, but no additional output.
With slub_debug=FP I have not seen it again, so I can't sa
On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
> > had lockdep enabled) I got this:
>
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:15:48 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 2007 8:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I had already fixed that o
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:15:48 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:18 PM, Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had already fixed that one in my own stack. Attached are the 3 patches
that I've
On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
had lockdep enabled) I got this:
[ 64.550203]
[ 64.550205] =
[ 64.552213] [ BUG
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Torsten Kaiser wrote:
Anything I could try, apart from more boots with slub_debug=F?
One time it triggered with slub_debug=F, but no additional output.
With slub_debug=FP I have not seen it again, so I can't say if that
would yield
Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
had lockdep enabled) I got this:
[ 64.550203]
[ 64.550205] =
[ 64.552213] [ BUG: held lock freed! ]
[ 64.553633] -
[ 64.555055] kcryptd/1022 is freeing memory
On Nov 18, 2007 8:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 19:44 +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > NFSv2/3 and NFSv4 share the same dentry_iput and so share the same
> > unlink and sillyrename logic.
> > But they do not share nfs_init_ser
On Nov 18, 2007 12:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been staring at this NFS code for a while an can't make any sense
> out of it. It seems to correctly initialize the waitqueue. So this would
> indicate corruption of some sort.
No, it does not "correctly" initialize the
On Nov 18, 2007 12:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been staring at this NFS code for a while an can't make any sense
out of it. It seems to correctly initialize the waitqueue. So this would
indicate corruption of some sort.
No, it does not correctly initialize the
On Nov 18, 2007 8:18 PM, Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 19:44 +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
NFSv2/3 and NFSv4 share the same dentry_iput and so share the same
unlink and sillyrename logic.
But they do not share nfs_init_server()!
I wonder why this doesn't
Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
had lockdep enabled) I got this:
[ 64.550203]
[ 64.550205] =
[ 64.552213] [ BUG: held lock freed! ]
[ 64.553633] -
[ 64.555055] kcryptd/1022 is freeing memory
On Nov 18, 2007 12:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:40:22PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>
> > Lockdep triggers immedetly before the freeze, but the result is still
> > not helpful:
> >
> > [ 221.565011]
On Nov 17, 2007 8:33 PM, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > That's slub. It appears that list_lock is being taken from process context
> > in one place and from softirq in another.
>
> I kicked out some weird interrupt disable code in mm
On Nov 17, 2007 7:19 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:46 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sadly lockdep does not work fo
On Nov 17, 2007 7:58 PM, Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 18:53 +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2007 3:15 PM, Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Andrew,
> > >
> > > The kernel
On Nov 16, 2007 3:15 PM, Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> The kernel enters the xmon state while running the file system
> stress on nfs v4 mounted partition.
[snip]
> 0:mon> t
> [c000dbd4fb50] c0069768 .__wake_up+0x54/0x88
> [c000dbd4fc00]
On Nov 16, 2007 3:15 PM, Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
The kernel enters the xmon state while running the file system
stress on nfs v4 mounted partition.
[snip]
0:mon t
[c000dbd4fb50] c0069768 .__wake_up+0x54/0x88
[c000dbd4fc00] d086b890
On Nov 17, 2007 7:58 PM, Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 18:53 +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 3:15 PM, Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Andrew,
The kernel enters the xmon state while running the file system
stress on nfs v4
On Nov 17, 2007 7:19 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:46 +0100 Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sadly lockdep does not work for me, as it gets turned off early:
[ 39.851594
On Nov 17, 2007 8:33 PM, Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
That's slub. It appears that list_lock is being taken from process context
in one place and from softirq in another.
I kicked out some weird interrupt disable code in mm that was
On Nov 18, 2007 12:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:40:22PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
Lockdep triggers immedetly before the freeze, but the result is still
not helpful:
[ 221.565011] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
[ 221.566999
On Nov 16, 2007 3:03 PM, Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > The only thing that looks suspicious to me in that patch is the
> > following change in nfs4_atomic_open(), nfs4_open_revalidate() and
> > nfs4_proc_create()
>
On Nov 16, 2007 3:03 PM, Jan Blunck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
The only thing that looks suspicious to me in that patch is the
following change in nfs4_atomic_open(), nfs4_open_revalidate() and
nfs4_proc_create()
- struct path path
On Nov 15, 2007 10:34 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:24:12 +0100
> "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem with the first bisect-try was, that everything between
> > bisect-good: r-o
On Nov 15, 2007 6:36 PM, Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>
> > > > So I can create new directories, but not new files. Reading files works
> > > > normal.
> > > >>
> > > > The client is 2
On Nov 15, 2007 6:36 PM, Jan Blunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>
> > > > So I can create new directories, but not new files. Reading files works
> > > > normal.
> > > >>
> > > > The client is 2
On Nov 15, 2007 6:36 PM, Jan Blunck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
So I can create new directories, but not new files. Reading files works
normal.
The client is 2.6.24-rc2-mm1, the server 2.6.22-gentoo-r9.
I added Jan Blunck to the recipents
On Nov 15, 2007 6:36 PM, Jan Blunck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
So I can create new directories, but not new files. Reading files works
normal.
The client is 2.6.24-rc2-mm1, the server 2.6.22-gentoo-r9.
I added Jan Blunck to the recipents
On Nov 15, 2007 10:34 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:24:12 +0100
Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with the first bisect-try was, that everything between
bisect-good: r-o-bind-mounts-elevate-write-count-over-calls-to-vfs_rename
On Nov 14, 2007 9:29 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:16:09 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ftp
On Nov 14, 2007 9:29 PM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:16:09 +0100 "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ftp
On Nov 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc2/2.6.24-rc2-mm1/
Breaks nfsv4 in a rather funny way:
treogen ~ # cd /usr/portage/x
treogen x # touch bla
touch: cannot touch `bla': File exists
treogen x
On Nov 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc2/2.6.24-rc2-mm1/
Breaks nfsv4 in a rather funny way:
treogen ~ # cd /usr/portage/x
treogen x # touch bla
touch: cannot touch `bla': File exists
treogen x #
On Nov 14, 2007 9:29 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:16:09 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc2/2.6.24-rc2
On Nov 14, 2007 9:29 PM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:16:09 +0100 Torsten Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 2:59 AM, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.24-rc2/2.6.24-rc2
this is now much faster again.
Thanks!
Tested-by: Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC's please note: It looks like this was really a different problem
then the 100% iowait that was seen with reiserfs.
Also the one complete stall I have seen is probably something else.
But I have not been abl
On 11/6/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --
> Subject: writeback: remove pages_skipped accounting in
> __block_write_full_page()
> From: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and me identified a
On 11/6/07, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 15:25 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > I'm struggling to understand what possible changed in XFS or writeback that
> > would lead to stalls like this, esp. as you appear to be removing files when
> > the stalls occur.
>
101 - 200 of 368 matches
Mail list logo
