On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:06:58 -0500
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jeff.
>
> Can you please verify whether the following patch fixes the issue?
>
> Thanks.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 84190f0..566a282 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.
Hello, Jeff.
Can you please verify whether the following patch fixes the issue?
Thanks.
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index 84190f0..566a282 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -970,12 +970,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(add_timer);
*/
void add_timer_on
Hello, Jeff.
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 12:55:04PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Ok, I built a kernel with that patch reverted and that seems to fix the
> > problem.
> >
> > Looking at the patch, I guess the main difference is that we're no
> > longer using add_timer for unbound workqueue tasks. Tha
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 20:33:39 -0500
Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:56:33 -0500
> Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:48:41 -1000
> > Chris Worley wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Layton
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:31:07 -0400
> > >
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:56:33 -0500
Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:48:41 -1000
> Chris Worley wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Layton
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:31:07 -0400
> > > Tejun Heo wrote:
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> > I have asked Chris and Michael
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:48:41 -1000
Chris Worley wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:31:07 -0400
> > Tejun Heo wrote:
> ...
> >>
> >> > I have asked Chris and Michael to see if they can bisect it down, but
> >> > it may be a bit before they can
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:31:07 -0400
> Tejun Heo wrote:
...
>>
>> > I have asked Chris and Michael to see if they can bisect it down, but
>> > it may be a bit before they can get that done. Any insight you might
>> > have in the meantime would
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:31:07 -0400
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jeff.
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 07:34:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Heh, this one is tricky. Yeah, try_to_grab_pending() missing PENDING
> > > would explain the failure but I can't see how it'd leak at the moment.
> >
> > Th
Hello, Jeff.
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 07:34:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Heh, this one is tricky. Yeah, try_to_grab_pending() missing PENDING
> > would explain the failure but I can't see how it'd leak at the moment.
>
> Thanks Tejun. Yeah, I realized that after sending the response above.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:00:12 +0900
Tejun Heo wrote:
> (cc'ing Lai)
>
> Hello, Jeff.
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > crash> p cache_cleaner
> > cache_cleaner = $12 = {
> > work = {
> > data = {
> > counter = 0xfffe1
>
> If I'm not mistaken, P
(cc'ing Lai)
Hello, Jeff.
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:58:36PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> crash> p cache_cleaner
> cache_cleaner = $12 = {
> work = {
> data = {
> counter = 0xfffe1
If I'm not mistaken, PENDING, flush color 14, OFFQ and POOL_NONE.
> },
> entry = {
>
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:31:13 -0400
Jeff Layton wrote:
> Our QA guys hit the following warning and oops today on a relatively
> recent upstream kernel. They were running a fairly busy NFSv3 I/O test
> against this server:
>
> [ 71.074180] NFSD: starting 90-second grace period (net 81cf3
Our QA guys hit the following warning and oops today on a relatively
recent upstream kernel. They were running a fairly busy NFSv3 I/O test
against this server:
[ 71.074180] NFSD: starting 90-second grace period (net 81cf3b40)
[ 221.146802] Ebtables v2.0 unregistered
[ 318.909835]
13 matches
Mail list logo
