I'm experiencing a stall with Ceph daemons communicating over TCP that
occurs reliably with 3.6-rc1 (and linus/master) but not 3.5. The basic
situation is:
- the socket is two processes communicating over TCP on the same host, e.g.
tcp0 2164849 10.214.132.38:6801 10.214.132.38:5
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:30:59 +0200
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 10:04 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > Can the following patch be tested please? It is reported to fix an fio
> > regression that may be similar to what you are experiencing but has not
> > been picked up yet.
> >
> >
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 16:20 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:30:59 +0200
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 10:04 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > > Can the following patch be tested please? It is reported to fix an fio
> > > regression that may be similar to w
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:54:59AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I've retested several times and confirmed that this change leads to the
> > > breakage, and also confirmed that reverting it on top of -rc1 also fixes
> > > the problem.
> > >
> > > I've also added some additional instrum
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:02:05 -0700 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > Can the following patch be tested please? It is reported to fix an fio
> > regression that may be similar to what you are experiencing but has not
> > been picked up yet.
>
> A
On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> I'm experiencing a stall with Ceph daemons communicating over TCP that
> occurs reliably with 3.6-rc1 (and linus/master) but not 3.5. The basic
> situation is:
>
> - the socket is two processes communicating over TCP on the same host, e.g.
>
>
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Atchley, Scott wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>
> > I'm experiencing a stall with Ceph daemons communicating over TCP that
> > occurs reliably with 3.6-rc1 (and linus/master) but not 3.5. The basic
> > situation is:
> >
> > - the socket is two proce
I've bisected and identified this commit:
netvm: propagate page->pfmemalloc to skb
The skb->pfmemalloc flag gets set to true iff during the slab allocation
of data in __alloc_skb that the the PFMEMALLOC reserves were used. If the
packet is fragmented, it is possible that page
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 11:49 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> I've bisected and identified this commit:
>
> netvm: propagate page->pfmemalloc to skb
>
> The skb->pfmemalloc flag gets set to true iff during the slab allocation
> of data in __alloc_skb that the the PFMEMALLOC reserves were
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:49:31AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> I've bisected and identified this commit:
>
> netvm: propagate page->pfmemalloc to skb
>
> The skb->pfmemalloc flag gets set to true iff during the slab allocation
> of data in __alloc_skb that the the PFMEMALLOC reserve
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 10:04 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Can the following patch be tested please? It is reported to fix an fio
> regression that may be similar to what you are experiencing but has not
> been picked up yet.
>
> -
This seems to help here.
Boot your machine with "mem=768M" or a bit
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:49:31AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > I've bisected and identified this commit:
> >
> > netvm: propagate page->pfmemalloc to skb
> >
> > The skb->pfmemalloc flag gets set to true iff during the slab allocation
> > o
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Can the following patch be tested please? It is reported to fix an fio
> regression that may be similar to what you are experiencing but has not
> been picked up yet.
Andrew, is this in your queue, or should I take this directly, or
what? It
13 matches
Mail list logo
