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-
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:10:34AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday March 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:34:05AM +0300, [Ville Herva] wrote:
> > >
> > > I just upgraded from linux-2.4.21 + vserser 0.17 to 2.4.30rc3 + vserver
> > > 1.2.10. The box has been running s
On Monday March 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:34:05AM +0300, [Ville Herva] wrote:
> >
> > I just upgraded from linux-2.4.21 + vserser 0.17 to 2.4.30rc3 + vserver
> > 1.2.10. The box has been running stable with 2.4.21 + vserver 0.17/0.16 for
> > a few years (uptime befo
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:25:58PM +0200, you [Willy Tarreau] wrote:
>
> Since you don't seem to be willing to remove vserver, I guess you really
> need it on this machine, and to be honnest,
Yes, the machine is in production, and for that it, it needs vserver. The
fact it is in production also
Hi Ville,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:55:01PM +0300, Ville Herva wrote:
(...)
> I rebooted (fsck took the fs errors away, no big offenders), and after a few
> minutes, I got the same error ("journal commit I/O error"). So it doesn't
> appear all that random memory corruption. The error happened ri
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 01:28:01PM -0300, you [Marcelo Tosatti] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here goes -rc3.
>
> A nasty typo happened while merging v2.6 load_elf_library() DoS fix,
> which could leap to oopses.
>
> Summary of changes from v2.4.30-rc2 to v2.4.30-rc3
> ===
17 matches
Mail list logo
