On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:36:18 +1030
"Tom Lanyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/27/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What would also actually be interesting is whether somebody can reproduce
> > this on Reiserfs, for example. I _think_ all the reports I've seen are on
> > ext2
On 1/7/07, Tom Lanyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've been following this thread for a while now as I started
experiencing file corruption in rtorrent when I upgraded to 2.6.19. I
am using reiserfs.
However, moving to 2.6.20-rc3 does indeed seem to fix the issue thus far...
--
Tom Lanyon
-
To
On 12/27/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would also actually be interesting is whether somebody can reproduce
this on Reiserfs, for example. I _think_ all the reports I've seen are on
ext2 or ext3, and if this is somehow writeback-related, it could be some
bug that is just
On 12/27/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would also actually be interesting is whether somebody can reproduce
this on Reiserfs, for example. I _think_ all the reports I've seen are on
ext2 or ext3, and if this is somehow writeback-related, it could be some
bug that is just
On 1/7/07, Tom Lanyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been following this thread for a while now as I started
experiencing file corruption in rtorrent when I upgraded to 2.6.19. I
am using reiserfs.
However, moving to 2.6.20-rc3 does indeed seem to fix the issue thus far...
--
Tom Lanyon
-
To
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:36:18 +1030
Tom Lanyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/27/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would also actually be interesting is whether somebody can reproduce
this on Reiserfs, for example. I _think_ all the reports I've seen are on
ext2 or ext3, and
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> For s390 there are two aspects to consider:
> 1) the pte values are 100% software controlled.
That's fine. In that situation, you shouldn't need any atomic ops at all,
I think all our sw page-table operations are already done under the pte
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 12:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What do you guys think? Does something like this work out for S/390 too? I
> tried to make that "ptep_flush_dirty()" concept work for architectures
> that hide the dirty bit somewhere else too, but..
For s390 there are two aspects to
On 12/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do get this error on reiserfs ( old one, didn't try on reiser4 ).
Stock 2.6.19 plus reiser4 patch. Previously reported by me only in the
debian bts.
I've had reports of corrupted data on earlier kernel releases with
reiserfs3, which
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:26:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What would also actually be interesting is whether somebody can reproduce
> this on Reiserfs, for example. I _think_ all the reports I've seen are on
> ext2 or ext3, and if this is somehow writeback-related, it could be some
>
On 12/27/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- It never uses mprotect on the shared mappings, but it _does_ do:
"mincore()" - but the return values don't much matter (it's used
as a heuristic on which parts to hash, apparently)
I
On 12/27/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
- It never uses mprotect on the shared mappings, but it _does_ do:
mincore() - but the return values don't much matter (it's used
as a heuristic on which parts to hash, apparently)
I
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 11:26:50AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
What would also actually be interesting is whether somebody can reproduce
this on Reiserfs, for example. I _think_ all the reports I've seen are on
ext2 or ext3, and if this is somehow writeback-related, it could be some
bug
On 12/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do get this error on reiserfs ( old one, didn't try on reiser4 ).
Stock 2.6.19 plus reiser4 patch. Previously reported by me only in the
debian bts.
I've had reports of corrupted data on earlier kernel releases with
reiserfs3, which
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 12:01 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
What do you guys think? Does something like this work out for S/390 too? I
tried to make that ptep_flush_dirty() concept work for architectures
that hide the dirty bit somewhere else too, but..
For s390 there are two aspects to consider:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
For s390 there are two aspects to consider:
1) the pte values are 100% software controlled.
That's fine. In that situation, you shouldn't need any atomic ops at all,
I think all our sw page-table operations are already done under the pte
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Ok, so how about this diff.
> >
> > I'm actually feeling good about this one. It really looks like
> > "do_no_page()" was simply buggy, and that this explains everything.
>
> Still trying to catch up here, so I'm not
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 05:51:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:24:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
> > >
> > > Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
> > > "safe_sync".
> >
> > Dang. Did you
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:24:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
> >
> > Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
> > "safe_sync".
>
> Dang. Did you get any warning messages from the kernel?
>
> Linus
BTW,
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Peter, tell me I'm crazy, but with the new rules, the following condition
is a bug:
- shared mapping
- writable
- not already marked dirty in the PTE
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Peter, tell me I'm crazy, but with the new rules, the following condition
is a bug:
- shared mapping
- writable
- not already marked dirty in the PTE
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:24:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
safe_sync.
Dang. Did you get any warning messages from the kernel?
Linus
BTW, rmap.c patch is
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 05:51:55PM +, Al Viro wrote:
On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 12:24:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
safe_sync.
Dang. Did you get any warning
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It really looks like
do_no_page() was simply buggy, and that this explains everything.
Still trying to catch up here, so I'm not going to reply to
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-24 11:35]:
> And if this doesn't fix it, I don't know what will..
Sorry, but it still fails (on top of plain 2.6.19).
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
> Quoting Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one (was: 2.6.19 file content
> corruption on ext3)
>
> Peter, tell me I'm crazy, but with the new rules, the following condition
> is a bug:
>
> - shared mapping
> -
On 12/24/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It really looks like
"do_no_page()" was simply buggy, and that this explains everything.
I tested with just this patch and 2.6.19 and no change. Sorry Linus,
no early
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 12:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
> >
> > Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
> > "safe_sync".
>
> Dang. Did you get any warning messages from the kernel?
>
only these:
ACPI: EC: evaluating _Q80
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
>
> Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
> "safe_sync".
Dang. Did you get any warning messages from the kernel?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 11:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
> >
> > The apt cache files (/var/cache/apt/*.bin) still get corrupted with
> > this patch and 2.6.19.
>
> Yeah, if my guess about do_no_page() is right, _none_ of the previous
> patches
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
>
> The apt cache files (/var/cache/apt/*.bin) still get corrupted with
> this patch and 2.6.19.
Yeah, if my guess about do_no_page() is right, _none_ of the previous
patches should have ANY effect what-so-ever. In fact, I'd say that even
the
On 12/24/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about this particularly stupid diff? (please test with something that
_would_ cause corruption normally).
It is _entirely_ untested, but what it tries to do is to simply serialize
any writeback in progress with any process that tries
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Peter, tell me I'm crazy, but with the new rules, the following condition
> is a bug:
>
> - shared mapping
> - writable
> - not already marked dirty in the PTE
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It really
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> How about this particularly stupid diff? (please test with something that
> _would_ cause corruption normally).
Actually, here's an even more stupid diff, which actually to some degree
seems to capture the real problem better.
Peter, tell me
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 04:31 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > /dev/sda7 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime,nobh)
> > > >
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 04:31 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > /dev/sda7 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime,nobh)
> > >
> > > I don't have corruption. I tested twice.
> >
> > This is a surprising result. Can you
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 04:31 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:14:38 +0200
> Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - mount the fs with ext2 with the no-buffer-head option. That means
> > > either:
> > >
> > > grub.conf: rootfstype=ext2 rootflags=nobh
> > >
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-24 00:57]:
> /etc/fstab: ext2 nobh
> /etc/fstab: ext3 data=writeback,nobh
It seems that busybox mount ignores the nobh option but both ext2 and
ext3 data=writeback work for me. This is with plain 2.6.19 which
normally always fails.
--
Martin
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:14:38 +0200
Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - mount the fs with ext2 with the no-buffer-head option. That means either:
> >
> > grub.conf: rootfstype=ext2 rootflags=nobh
> > /etc/fstab: ext2 nobh
>
> ierdnac ~ # mount
> /dev/sda7 on / type ext2
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:26:01 +0200
Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also tested with ext3 ordered, nobh and I have file corruption...
ordered+nobh isn't a possible combination. The filesystem probably ignored
nobh. nobh mode only makes sense with data=writeback.
-
To unsubscribe
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 14:14 +0200, Andrei Popa wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 00:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:43:54 -0800 (PST)
> > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
> > >
> > > - we started
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 00:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:43:54 -0800 (PST)
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
> >
> > - we started a writeout. The IO is still pending, and the page was
> >marked
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
> >
> > - we started a writeout. The IO is still pending, and the page was
> >marked clean and is now in the "writeback" phase.
> > - a write happens to the page, and the page gets
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
>
> - we started a writeout. The IO is still pending, and the page was
>marked clean and is now in the "writeback" phase.
> - a write happens to the
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
>
> Is there any way to provide any debugging information that may help
> solve the problem ?
I think we have people working on this. I know I'm trying to even come up
with an idea of what is going on. I don't think we know yet.
> Would it help
On 12/22/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 14:25]:
> > and it failed.
> Since you are on ARM you might want to try with the page_mkclean_one
> cleanup patch too.
I've already tried it and it didn't work. I just tried it again
On 12/22/06, Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 14:25]:
and it failed.
Since you are on ARM you might want to try with the page_mkclean_one
cleanup patch too.
I've already tried it and it didn't work. I just tried it again
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
Is there any way to provide any debugging information that may help
solve the problem ?
I think we have people working on this. I know I'm trying to even come up
with an idea of what is going on. I don't think we know yet.
Would it help to
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
- we started a writeout. The IO is still pending, and the page was
marked clean and is now in the writeback phase.
- a write happens to the page,
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
- we started a writeout. The IO is still pending, and the page was
marked clean and is now in the writeback phase.
- a write happens to the page, and the page gets marked dirty
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 00:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
- we started a writeout. The IO is still pending, and the page was
marked clean and is
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 14:14 +0200, Andrei Popa wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 00:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I now _suspect_ that we're talking about something like
- we started a writeout. The IO
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:26:01 +0200
Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also tested with ext3 ordered, nobh and I have file corruption...
ordered+nobh isn't a possible combination. The filesystem probably ignored
nobh. nobh mode only makes sense with data=writeback.
-
To unsubscribe from
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:14:38 +0200
Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- mount the fs with ext2 with the no-buffer-head option. That means either:
grub.conf: rootfstype=ext2 rootflags=nobh
/etc/fstab: ext2 nobh
ierdnac ~ # mount
/dev/sda7 on / type ext2 (rw,noatime,nobh)
I
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-24 00:57]:
/etc/fstab: ext2 nobh
/etc/fstab: ext3 data=writeback,nobh
It seems that busybox mount ignores the nobh option but both ext2 and
ext3 data=writeback work for me. This is with plain 2.6.19 which
normally always fails.
--
Martin
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 04:31 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:14:38 +0200
Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- mount the fs with ext2 with the no-buffer-head option. That means
either:
grub.conf: rootfstype=ext2 rootflags=nobh
/etc/fstab: ext2 nobh
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 04:31 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/dev/sda7 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime,nobh)
I don't have corruption. I tested twice.
This is a surprising result. Can you pleas retest ext3
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 09:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 04:31 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/dev/sda7 on / type ext3 (rw,noatime,nobh)
I don't have
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
How about this particularly stupid diff? (please test with something that
_would_ cause corruption normally).
Actually, here's an even more stupid diff, which actually to some degree
seems to capture the real problem better.
Peter, tell me I'm
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Peter, tell me I'm crazy, but with the new rules, the following condition
is a bug:
- shared mapping
- writable
- not already marked dirty in the PTE
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It really looks
On 12/24/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about this particularly stupid diff? (please test with something that
_would_ cause corruption normally).
It is _entirely_ untested, but what it tries to do is to simply serialize
any writeback in progress with any process that tries to
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
The apt cache files (/var/cache/apt/*.bin) still get corrupted with
this patch and 2.6.19.
Yeah, if my guess about do_no_page() is right, _none_ of the previous
patches should have ANY effect what-so-ever. In fact, I'd say that even
the ext3
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 11:35 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Gordon Farquharson wrote:
The apt cache files (/var/cache/apt/*.bin) still get corrupted with
this patch and 2.6.19.
Yeah, if my guess about do_no_page() is right, _none_ of the previous
patches should
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
safe_sync.
Dang. Did you get any warning messages from the kernel?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 12:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
Hash check on download completion found bad chunks, consider using
safe_sync.
Dang. Did you get any warning messages from the kernel?
only these:
ACPI: EC: evaluating _Q80
ACPI: EC:
On 12/24/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, so how about this diff.
I'm actually feeling good about this one. It really looks like
do_no_page() was simply buggy, and that this explains everything.
I tested with just this patch and 2.6.19 and no change. Sorry Linus,
no early
Quoting Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one (was: 2.6.19 file content
corruption on ext3)
Peter, tell me I'm crazy, but with the new rules, the following condition
is a bug:
- shared mapping
- writable
- not already marked dirty
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-24 11:35]:
And if this doesn't fix it, I don't know what will..
Sorry, but it still fails (on top of plain 2.6.19).
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 13:32 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 14:24]:
> > With all three patches I have corruption
>
> I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
> Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again... but
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 13:32 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 14:24]:
With all three patches I have corruption
I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again... but I really
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 14:25]:
> > and it failed.
> Since you are on ARM you might want to try with the page_mkclean_one
> cleanup patch too.
I've already tried it and it didn't work. I just tried it again
together with Linus' patch and the two from Andrew and it
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> fix page_mkclean_one()
>
> - add flush_cache_page() for all those virtual indexed cache
>architectures.
I think the flush_cache_page() should be after we've actually flushed it
from the TLB and re-inserted it (this is one reason why I did
* Gordon Farquharson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 08:30]:
> Based on the kernel gurus current knowledge of the problem, would
> you expect the corruption to occur at the same point in a file, or
> is it possible that the corruption could occur at different points
> on successive Debian
On 12/22/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... and now that we've completed this step, the apt cache has suddenly
been reduced (see Gordon's mail for an explanation) and it segfaults:
sh-3.1# ls -l /var/cache/apt/
total 12524
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 12288 Dec 22 04:41 archives
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:32:49PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 14:24]:
> > With all three patches I have corruption
>
> I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
> Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying
On 12/22/06, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
sh-3.1# ls -l /var/cache/apt/
total 5252
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root12288 Dec 22 04:41 archives
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12582912 Dec 22 04:45 pkgcache.bin
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8554 Dec 22 04:45 srcpkgcache.bin
This listing is a
On 12/21/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew located at least one bug: we run cancel_dirty_page() too late in
"truncate_complete_page()", which means that do_invalidatepage() ends up
not clearing the page cache.
His patch is appended.
Thanks. I'll try this out later today.
A cleanup of try_to_unmap. I have not identified any races that this
would solve, but for consistencies sake.
Also includes a small s390 optimization by moving
page_test_and_clear_dirty() out of the vma iteration.
From: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We clear the page in the following
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 13:59 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 13:32]:
> > I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
> > Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again...
>
> and it failed.
Since you are on ARM
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 13:32]:
> I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
> Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again...
... and it failed.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
* Andrei Popa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 14:24]:
> With all three patches I have corruption
I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again... but I really
need a better testcase since an installation takes about an
With all three patches I have corruption
diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
index d1f1b54..263f88e 100644
--- a/fs/buffer.c
+++ b/fs/buffer.c
@@ -2834,7 +2834,7 @@ int try_to_free_buffers(struct page *pag
int ret = 0;
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
- if
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 02:17]:
> > This hunk (on top of git from about 2 days ago and your latest patch)
> > results in the installer hanging right at the start.
>
> You'll need this also:
It starts again, thanks.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
-
To
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 11:10]:
> > immediately when I started wget, the hanging apt-get process
> > continued.
> ... and now that we've completed this step, the apt cache has suddenly
> been reduced (see Gordon's mail for an explanation) and it segfaults:
One of my
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:00:04 +0100
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - if (TestClearPageDirty(page) && account_size)
> > + if (TestClearPageDirty(page) && account_size) {
> > + dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> >
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 11:06]:
> Okay, it's really weird. So apt-get just hangs doing nothing and I
> cannot even kill it. I just tried to download strace via wget and
> immediately when I started wget, the hanging apt-get process
> continued.
... and now that we've
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-22 11:00]:
> This time, however, I let the installer continue and it seems that
> with your patch apt now works where it failed in the past, but it
> hangs later on. It's pretty weird because I cannot even kill the
> process:
Okay, it's really
* Gordon Farquharson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-21 21:20]:
> generating these files, pkgcache.bin grows to 12582912 bytes, and when
> apt-get finishes, pkgcache.bin is 6425533 bytes and srcpkgcache.bin is
> 64254483 bytes. This time, when apt-get exited, it had only created
> pkgcache.bin which
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-12-21 20:54]:
> But it sounds like I probably misunderstood something, because I thought
> that Martin had acknowledged that this patch actually worked for him.
That's what I thought too but now I can confirm what Gordon sees. But
it's pretty weird.
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-21 20:54]:
But it sounds like I probably misunderstood something, because I thought
that Martin had acknowledged that this patch actually worked for him.
That's what I thought too but now I can confirm what Gordon sees. But
it's pretty weird. Our
* Gordon Farquharson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-21 21:20]:
generating these files, pkgcache.bin grows to 12582912 bytes, and when
apt-get finishes, pkgcache.bin is 6425533 bytes and srcpkgcache.bin is
64254483 bytes. This time, when apt-get exited, it had only created
pkgcache.bin which was
* Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 11:00]:
This time, however, I let the installer continue and it seems that
with your patch apt now works where it failed in the past, but it
hangs later on. It's pretty weird because I cannot even kill the
process:
Okay, it's really weird. So
* Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 11:06]:
Okay, it's really weird. So apt-get just hangs doing nothing and I
cannot even kill it. I just tried to download strace via wget and
immediately when I started wget, the hanging apt-get process
continued.
... and now that we've
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:00:04 +0100
Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- if (TestClearPageDirty(page) account_size)
+ if (TestClearPageDirty(page) account_size) {
+ dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
task_io_account_cancelled_write(account_size);
* Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 11:10]:
immediately when I started wget, the hanging apt-get process
continued.
... and now that we've completed this step, the apt cache has suddenly
been reduced (see Gordon's mail for an explanation) and it segfaults:
One of my questions
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 02:17]:
This hunk (on top of git from about 2 days ago and your latest patch)
results in the installer hanging right at the start.
You'll need this also:
It starts again, thanks.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
-
To unsubscribe from
With all three patches I have corruption
diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
index d1f1b54..263f88e 100644
--- a/fs/buffer.c
+++ b/fs/buffer.c
@@ -2834,7 +2834,7 @@ int try_to_free_buffers(struct page *pag
int ret = 0;
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
- if
* Andrei Popa [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 14:24]:
With all three patches I have corruption
I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again... but I really
need a better testcase since an installation takes about an
* Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 13:32]:
I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again...
... and it failed.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 13:59 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-12-22 13:32]:
I've completed one installation with Linus' patch plus the two from
Andrew successfully, but I'm currently trying again...
and it failed.
Since you are on ARM you might
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
