> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:20:06 -0600 Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
>
> The second seems to make more sense. I tested with the first last
> night which didn't help.
>
> With the proper patch in place things look
Not that it'll help much: the VM calls throttle_vm_writeout()
for GFP_NOIO
and GFP_NOFS allocations, which is a bug. Because if the caller
holds
locks which prevent filesystem or IO progress, we deadlock.
I'll fix the VM if someone else fixes USB ;)
What else needs to be fixed?
Would be
Not that it'll help much: the VM calls throttle_vm_writeout()
for GFP_NOIO
and GFP_NOFS allocations, which is a bug. Because if the caller
holds
locks which prevent filesystem or IO progress, we deadlock.
I'll fix the VM if someone else fixes USB ;)
What else needs to be fixed?
Would be
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:20:06 -0600 Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if ((gfp_mask (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
The second seems to make more sense. I tested with the first last
night which didn't help.
With the proper patch in place things look good. Is
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
>
> Is that really the correct test? I don't know enough about the memory
> management subsystem to say one way or the other. What's special
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
> Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > > It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
> > > > > Ideas?
> > > >
> > > > It
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > > It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
> > > > Ideas?
> > >
> > > It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool()
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
> > > Ideas?
> >
> > It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool() for
> > urb... Is someone working on this? And idea?
>
> I think Pete said that we're
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:18:45 +0900
OGAWA Hirofumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
> >>>
> >>> time ./trunc_test bar 1 &
> >>> time ./trunc_test baz 1 &
> >>>
> >>> I was wondering
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
>>>
>>> time ./trunc_test bar 1 &
>>> time ./trunc_test baz 1 &
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what to poke at next
>>> to try and figure out what is going
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
time ./trunc_test bar 1
time ./trunc_test baz 1
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what to poke at next
to try and figure out what is going on.
So I realized I
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:18:45 +0900
OGAWA Hirofumi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
time ./trunc_test bar 1
time ./trunc_test baz 1
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool() for
urb... Is someone working on this? And idea?
I think Pete said that we're supposed to be
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some kmalloc and use mempool() for
urb... Is
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:50:23 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+ if ((gfp_mask (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) {
Is that really the correct test? I don't know enough about the memory
management subsystem to say one way or the other. What's special about
On Feb 21, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It seems like usb-storage and aio are completely off in the weeds.
Ideas?
It seems usb-storage should remove some
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:19 PM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>
>> Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Once the system locks up I dont have any ability to do anything.
>>
>> Ah, doesn't sysrq also work? If sysrq work, it can use to see IO
>> request state
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:19 PM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Once the system locks up I dont have any ability to do anything.
Ah, doesn't sysrq also work? If sysrq work, it can use to see IO
request state with a patch.
Kumar Gala wrote:
[ 497.499249] usb-storage D 0 671 5
773 670 (L-TLB)
[ 497.506930] Call Trace:
[ 497.509372] [C3F35A60] [C00083AC] __switch_to+0x28/0x40
[ 497.514608] [C3F35A80] [C01F4B78] schedule+0x324/0x6bc
[ 497.519756] [C3F35AC0] [C01F5D6C]
On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:19 PM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
time ./trunc_test bar 1 &
time ./trunc_test baz 1 &
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what to poke at
next
to
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
>>>
>>> time ./trunc_test bar 1 &
>>> time ./trunc_test baz 1 &
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what to poke at next
>>> to try and figure out what is going
On Feb 18, 2007, at 10:10 AM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a
On Feb 18, 2007, at 10:10 AM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a
On Feb 18, 2007, at 10:10 AM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a
On Feb 18, 2007, at 10:10 AM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
time ./trunc_test bar 1
time ./trunc_test baz 1
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what to poke at next
to try and figure out what is going on.
Can you check
On Feb 19, 2007, at 4:19 PM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I usually run the following twice to get the hang state:
time ./trunc_test bar 1
time ./trunc_test baz 1
I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on what to poke at
next
to try
Kumar Gala wrote:
[ 497.499249] usb-storage D 0 671 5
773 670 (L-TLB)
[ 497.506930] Call Trace:
[ 497.509372] [C3F35A60] [C00083AC] __switch_to+0x28/0x40
[ 497.514608] [C3F35A80] [C01F4B78] schedule+0x324/0x6bc
[ 497.519756] [C3F35AC0] [C01F5D6C]
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
> PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
> drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
>
> If I execute a series of large (100M+) ftruncate() on the
Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large (100M+) ftruncate() on the disk
On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Robert Hancock wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an
embedded PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the
filesystem on the drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large (100M+) ftruncate() on the disk the
kernel will hang and
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large (100M+) ftruncate() on the disk the
kernel will hang and never return.
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large (100M+) ftruncate() on the disk the
kernel will hang and never return.
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an embedded
PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the filesystem on the
drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large (100M+) ftruncate() on the disk the
kernel will hang and
On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Robert Hancock wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
I'm seeing an issue with a stock 2.6.20 kernel running on an
embedded PPC. I've got a usb flash drive plugged in and the
filesystem on the drive is vfat. Running with 64M and no swap.
If I execute a series of large
38 matches
Mail list logo
