Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:01, Hifumi Hisashi wrote:
> I have measured the bh refcount before the buffer_uptodate() for a few days.
> I found out that the bh refcount sometimes reached to 0 .
> So, I think following modifications are effective.
>
> diff -Nru 2.4.30-rc3/fs/jbd/commit.c 2.4.30-r
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 21:46, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Stephen C. Tweedie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew, what was the exact illegal state of the pages you were seeing
> > when fixing that recent leak? It looks like it's nothing more complex
> > than dirty buffers on an anon page.
"Stephen C. Tweedie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew, what was the exact illegal state of the pages you were seeing
> when fixing that recent leak? It looks like it's nothing more complex
> than dirty buffers on an anon page.
Correct.
> I think that simply calling
> try_to_release_page
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 16:51, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> I'm currently running with the buffer-trace debug patch, on 2.4, with a
> custom patch to put every buffer jbd ever sees onto a per-superblock
> list, and remove it only when the bh is destroyed in
> put_unused_buffer_head(). At unmoun
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 21:10, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> However, 2.6 is suspected of still having leaks in ext3. To be certain
> that we're not just backporting one of those to 2.4, we need to
> understand who exactly is going to clean up these bh's if they are in
> fact unused once we comp
Hi,
At 23:20 05/04/06, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>Yes. But it is conventional to interpret a short write as being a
>failure. Returning less bytes than were requested in the write
>indicates that the rest failed. It just doesn't give the exact nature
>of the failure (EIO vs ENOSPC etc.) For reg
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:01, Hifumi Hisashi wrote:
> I have measured the bh refcount before the buffer_uptodate() for a few days.
> I found out that the bh refcount sometimes reached to 0 .
> So, I think following modifications are effective.
Thanks --- it certainly looks like this should fi
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 11:01, Hifumi Hisashi wrote:
> >Certainly it's normal for a short read/write to imply either error or
> >EOF, without the error necessarily needing to be returned explicitly.
> >I'm not convinced that the Singleunix language actually requires that,
> >but it seems th
Hi.
At 07:40 05/04/06, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>Sorry, was offline for a week last week; I'll try to look at this more
>closely tomorrow. Checking the buffer_uptodate() without either a
>refcount or a lock certainly looks unsafe at first glance.
>
>There are lots of ways to pin the bh in that pa
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-03-30 at 12:59, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > I'm not certain that this is right, but it seems possible and would
> > explain the symptoms. Maybe Stephen or Andrew could comments?
>
> Andrew, Stephen?
Sorry, was offline for a week last week; I'll try to look at this more
closely
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 02:06:39PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Tuesday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Attached is the backout patch, for convenience.
>
> Thanks. I had another look, and think I may be able to see the
> problem. If I'm right, it is a problem with this patch.
>
> >
On Tuesday March 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Attached is the backout patch, for convenience.
Thanks. I had another look, and think I may be able to see the
problem. If I'm right, it is a problem with this patch.
> diff -Nru a/fs/jbd/commit.c b/fs/jbd/commit.c
> --- a/fs/jbd/commit.c 2005-
12 matches
Mail list logo
