On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:31:32PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> I think Andi's handling the mergework on those patches, but I'll check
>> in to see if I should rediff vs. -mm or what if you want them.
>> Andi, what's the verdict on those stack patches?
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:59:50AM
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:31:32PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I'm using wli's 8k
> >> stack + irq stack patches with good success though.
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:09PM -0700, Andrew
On May 8 2007 16:18, David Chinner wrote:
>
>On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:38:24PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:38:24PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
> >> kernels. I get hangs/oopes
On Mon, 7 May 2007 22:31:32 -0700 William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I think Andi's handling the mergework on those patches, but I'll check
>> in to see if I should rediff vs. -mm or what if you want them.
>> Andi, what's the verdict on those stack patches?
On Mon, May 07, 2007
On Mon, 7 May 2007 22:31:32 -0700 William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think Andi's handling the mergework on those patches, but I'll check
in to see if I should rediff vs. -mm or what if you want them.
Andi, what's the verdict on those stack patches?
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:38:24PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
kernels. I get hangs/oopes after ~10mins
On May 8 2007 16:18, David Chinner wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:38:24PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:31:32PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm using wli's 8k
stack + irq stack patches with good success though.
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:31:32PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I think Andi's handling the mergework on those patches, but I'll check
in to see if I should rediff vs. -mm or what if you want them.
Andi, what's the verdict on those stack patches?
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:59:50AM
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
>> kernels. I get hangs/oopes after ~10mins of work.
>>
>
> Sounds like this is new behaviour?
>
> I
On Mon, 7 May 2007 22:31:32 -0700 William Lee Irwin III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> I'm using wli's 8k
> >> stack + irq stack patches with good success though.
>
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:09PM
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I'm using wli's 8k
>> stack + irq stack patches with good success though.
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> wlis are handy.
I think Andi's handling the mergework on those patches,
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Please enable 8k stacks before doing any other debugging things, see if
> > that fixes it.
>
> I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
> kernels. I get
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please enable 8k stacks before doing any other debugging things, see if
> that fixes it.
I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
kernels. I get hangs/oopes after ~10mins of work. I'm using wli's 8k
stack + irq stack patches with good success
On Tue, 08 May 2007 00:30:31 +0100
Simon Arlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 08/05/07 00:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:36 +0100
> > Simon Arlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I've just got this under mainline too now
> >>
On 08/05/07 00:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:36 +0100
Simon Arlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just got this under mainline too now
(0ec54aa8af5e6faa346aa55a1ad15ee6c25bb42d 2007-05-05 22:08:06):
[84567.084000] BUG: scheduling while atomic: pdflush/0xeff84acf/186
On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:36 +0100
Simon Arlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've just got this under mainline too now
> (0ec54aa8af5e6faa346aa55a1ad15ee6c25bb42d 2007-05-05 22:08:06):
>
> [84567.084000] BUG: scheduling while atomic: pdflush/0xeff84acf/186
> [84567.084000] INFO: lockdep is
On 06/05/07 21:54, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 21:36:32 +0100 Simon Arlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05/05/07 09:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21/2.6.21-mm1/
Not sure exactly what's going on here, but it happened
On 06/05/07 21:54, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2007 21:36:32 +0100 Simon Arlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/05/07 09:49, Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21/2.6.21-mm1/
Not sure exactly what's going on here, but it happened with
On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:36 +0100
Simon Arlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just got this under mainline too now
(0ec54aa8af5e6faa346aa55a1ad15ee6c25bb42d 2007-05-05 22:08:06):
[84567.084000] BUG: scheduling while atomic: pdflush/0xeff84acf/186
[84567.084000] INFO: lockdep is turned
On 08/05/07 00:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:36 +0100
Simon Arlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just got this under mainline too now
(0ec54aa8af5e6faa346aa55a1ad15ee6c25bb42d 2007-05-05 22:08:06):
[84567.084000] BUG: scheduling while atomic: pdflush/0xeff84acf/186
On Tue, 08 May 2007 00:30:31 +0100
Simon Arlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/05/07 00:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:36 +0100
Simon Arlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just got this under mainline too now
(0ec54aa8af5e6faa346aa55a1ad15ee6c25bb42d 2007-05-05
Andrew Morton wrote:
Please enable 8k stacks before doing any other debugging things, see if
that fixes it.
I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
kernels. I get hangs/oopes after ~10mins of work. I'm using wli's 8k
stack + irq stack patches with good success
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Please enable 8k stacks before doing any other debugging things, see if
that fixes it.
I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
kernels. I get hangs/oopes
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm using wli's 8k
stack + irq stack patches with good success though.
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:09PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
wlis are handy.
I think Andi's handling the mergework on those patches, but
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've found that XFS+lvm+4k stacks is completely unusable with current
kernels. I get hangs/oopes after ~10mins of work.
Sounds like this is new behaviour?
I wonder why. Same
On Mon, 7 May 2007 22:31:32 -0700 William Lee Irwin III [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:31:06 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm using wli's 8k
stack + irq stack patches with good success though.
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:24:09PM -0700, Andrew
28 matches
Mail list logo