On Friday, November 03, 2000 15:56:36 + Tigran Aivazian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
Hi Hans,
Simply starting the validation phase of SPEC SFS with NFS mounted reiserfs
filesystem panics as shown in the log below. A quick look at the source
On Friday, November 10, 2000 06:15:40 -0800 David Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Over the last three weeks my box has been locking up w/ a black screen
of death. This time I had kdb patched in and got the following:
Entering kdb (current=0xcf906000, pid 16808) Panic: invalid operand
due
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001 01:44:04 PM +0200 Jaquemet Loic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jaquemet Loic a crit :
Sorry if this problem has already been disscussed.
I run an linux box with a HD 30Go/reiserfs .
I tried several 2.4 kernel ( 2.4.2 , 2.4.3 , 2.4.4-pre3 , 2.4.3-ac7)
After a
Hi guys,
Under certain loads, the reiserfs journal can overflow the
max transaction size, leading to a crash (but not corruption).
When the transaction is too full for another writer to join,
the writer triggers a commit, and waits for the next transaction.
But, it doesn't properly check to
This patch should set s_maxbytes correctly for reiserfs in the
ac kernels, and adds a reiserfs_setattr call to catch expanding
truncates past the MAX_NON_LFS limit for old format files.
reiserfs_get_block already catches file writes and such for
this case.
It also adds a generic_inode_setattr
Hi guys,
The reiserfs commit thread needs to daemonize. This patch
was actually from Andi Kleen eons ago (but blame me if
it breaks). Please apply.
Against 2.4.3:
--- linux/fs/reiserfs/journal.c Thu Apr 19 14:02:56 2001
+++ linux/fs/reiserfs/journal.c Thu Apr 19 18:11:57 2001
@@ -1814,16
Hi guys,
This patch is not meant to replace Neil Brown's knfsd ops stuff, the
goal was to whip up something that had a chance of getting into 2.4.x,
and that might be usable by the AFS guys too. Neil's patch tries to
address a bunch of things that I didn't, and looks better for the
long run.
On Sunday, April 22, 2001 02:10:42 PM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote all inodes it
On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:01:20 PM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Hi!
I had a temporary disk failure (played with acpi too much). What
happened was that disk was not able to do anything for five minutes
or so. When disk recovered, linux happily overwrote
Hello everyone,
2.4.4-pre5 started honoring the s_maxbytes field, so reiserfs needs a
patch to allow files 4GB on 3.6.x format filesystems.
If you work with large files on reiserfs and are willing to try
the prerelease kernels (non-production), please give this a try,
it works for me but
Ok, so all the reiserfs tail bugs weren't quite fixed yet, the last
tail fix can cause problems with highmem turned on. Both bugs are
in fs/reiserfs/inode.c:_get_block_create_0
When reading the tail in, if the buffer was already up to date,
we skip the disk i/o and return. But the cleanup
On Thursday, April 26, 2001 02:24:26 PM -0400 Alexander Viro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
correct. I bet other fs are affected as well btw.
If only... block_read() vs. block_write() has the same race. I'm going
through the list of all
On Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:05:25 PM +0400 Samium Gromoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi People...
got a following dead of alive question:
how to find a root block on a ReiserFS partition
with a corrupted superblock?
reiserfsprogs-3.x.0.9j simply writes -2^32
there
On Friday, April 27, 2001 02:40:50 AM -0700 jason
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ouch ]
reiserfs_read_super: can't find reiserfs filesystem on dev 03:01
Invalid session # or type of track
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 03:01
In case it's any help, I'm running Debian sid
On Friday, April 27, 2001 12:28:54 AM +0200 Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Okay, so what about following patch, followed by attempt to debug it?
[I'd really like to get patch it; killing user's data without good
reason seems evil to me, and this did quite a lot of damage to my
On Friday, April 27, 2001 04:33:15 PM +0100 Tony Hoyle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reiserfs doesn't cope well with crashes Under 2.4 I wouldn't
recommend using it on any kind of critical server - it seems to
progressively corrupt itself (I'm looking at the second reformat and
reinstall
On Sunday, April 29, 2001 02:48:27 PM -0700 putter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I am kernel newbie, especially with logging filesystems.
Now I am using Mandrake 7.1 with 2.4.3 kernel and imon patch
and NVidia drivers compiled into the kernel.
^^^
The binary only nvidia
On Monday, April 30, 2001 12:07:04 AM -0700 putter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think I have tracked down the problem to the card itself. My machine is
on @ graphics mode all the time, like 24hrs a day, and it seems that it
is somewhat taxing on the cards performance. So now I switch down to
On Monday, April 30, 2001 10:55:57 PM +0200 Daniel Elstner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
unfortunately I have to correct me again.
The problem seems unrelated to the kernel version or SMP/UP
(though only 2.4.[34] tried yet).
Apparently it's a reiserfs/symlink problem.
I tried
On Monday, April 23, 2001 10:45:14 AM -0400 Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
This patch is not meant to replace Neil Brown's knfsd ops stuff, the
goal was to whip up something that had a chance of getting into 2.4.x,
and that might be usable by the AFS guys too. Neil's
On Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:41:52 AM +0200 Daniel Elstner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:03:47 -0400 Chris Mason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently it's a reiserfs/symlink problem.
I tried doing the lndir on an ext2 partition, sources still
on reiserfs
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 03:11:58 PM -0700 David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Can't say for a definite fact that it was reiserfs but I can say for a
definite fact that something fishy happens sometimes.
If I have a text file open, something.html comes to mind, If I edit it
and save it in one
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H. Peter Anvin writes:
Not correct, there can't be more than 2^15 *directories* in a single
directory. I belive this is an ext2 limitation.
I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory
On Friday, May 04, 2001 01:15:22 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris writes:
On Tuesday, May 01, 2001 04:57:02 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see that reiserfs plays some tricks with the directory i_nlink count.
If you exceed 64536 links in a
On Saturday, May 05, 2001 03:49:20 PM +0200 Jamie Lokier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
Is there a reason that
reiserfs chose to have large number of directories represented by 1
and not LINK_MAX+1?
find and a few others consider a link count of 1 to mean
On Tuesday, May 08, 2001 04:42:43 PM +0200 Michael Stiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
we run a nfs server utilizing 2.2.19 + ReiserFS version 3.5.32 on a
P 3 550 machine. Disk subsystem is a GDT7518RN using 4 UW disks as raid 5
device. After upgrading from 2.2.17 + reiserfs to 2.2.19
On Tuesday, June 05, 2001 03:00:40 PM -0400 Carlos E Gorges
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I get some problems w/ 2.4.5-ac7, ncr53c8xx w/ 2.4.4-ac18 works fine.
I gave a small looked on problem ..
the problem apparently is w/ ncr53c8xx driver ( who accuses timeout ),
and make
On Tuesday, June 12, 2001 05:25:46 PM +0800 Jeff Chua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Got the following journaling error on 2.4.5 SMP during shutdown ...
Known 2.4.5 problem. Fix below is from Al Viro:
-chris
diff -Nru a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
--- a/fs/super.cSat Jun 2 13:27:07
On Tuesday, June 12, 2001 01:17:49 PM -0700 Larry McVoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Folks, I believe I have a reproducible test case which corrupts data in
2.4.5.
We do nightly, weekly, and monthly backups by copying our entire /home
partition on the company file server:
Filesystem
Hi guys,
The 2.2.x reiserfs journal code marks newly allocated metadata so that if
it is freed in the same transaction (common due to balancing), it can
immediately be reused as a data block. It also allows faster freeing for
these blocks.
This tested patch enables that code for 2.4.x, Alan
On Thursday, June 14, 2001 09:59:43 AM -0300 Marcelo Tosatti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In pre3, GFP_BUFFER allocations can eat from the emergency memory
reservations in case try_to_free_pages() fails for those allocations in
__alloc_pages().
Here goes the (tested) patch to fix that:
On Monday, June 18, 2001 10:58:57 PM -0400 Shawn Starr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When diffing 2.4.6-pre2 pre3 I noticed some reiserfs code was
changed. This seems to cause VFS to panic via reiserfs.
Anyone else notice this?
What is the panic message?
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from
On Monday, June 18, 2001 11:57:16 PM -0400 Shawn Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
read_super_block: can't find a reiserfs filesystem on dev 03:42
read_old_super_block: try to find super block in old location
read_old_super_block: can't find a reiserfs filesystem on dev 03:42
Kernel Panic:
On Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:33:49 AM +0100 Alan Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This after only using ac15 for a few hours... I've never seen anything
like that with ac13, which I've used for days.
Is ac14 stable for you ?
Hi Justin,
ac14 was the first with a big reiserfs cleanup
On Thursday, June 21, 2001 05:08:13 PM +0200 Andrea Arcangeli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we can more simply drop the tmp-b_end_io == end_buffer_io_async
check enterely and safely. Possibly we could build a debugging logic to
make sure nobody ever lock down a buffer mapped on a
On Thursday, June 21, 2001 07:15:22 PM +0200 Andrea Arcangeli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:56:04AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
What's the problem with the existing code, and why do people want to add
a
(unnecessary) new bit?
there's no problem with the existing
Hi guys,
A few of the reiserfs errors paths for i/o error neglect to release
buffer heads. This patch makes sure things get released properly
and if dirty buffers were prepared for the log, also makes sure
the dirty bits are reset (by using unfix_nodes intead of pathrelse).
Vladimir
On Thursday, June 28, 2001 01:21:28 PM +1000 Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
...
The work around I've been using is the dirty_inode method. Whenever
mark_inode_dirty is called, reiserfs logs the dirty inode. This means
inode changes are _always_ reflected
On Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:27:57 PM +0100 Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:24:39AM +, James Sutherland wrote:
32 megaBLOCK?? How big is it in Mbytes?
Blocksize is 4k, mkreiserfs in my version is telling me it can not generate
partitions
On Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:02:46 PM -0800 David Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Chris, changing JOURNAL_MAX_BATCH from 900 to 100 didn't affect
anything).
Ok, having approached this slightly more intelligently here are [better]
results.
The dumps are large so they are located at
On Thursday, February 01, 2001 02:16:43 PM -0200 Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
About the system hanging completely, I wonder if it goes
away by pressing sysrq-S (sync all disks). If it does,
maybe Reiserfs was blocking all the pages in the inactive
list from being written
On Friday, February 02, 2001 12:26:52 PM + Alan Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why our next patch will detect the use of gcc 2.96, and
complain, in the reiserfs Makefile.
What makes you think its gcc 2.96 ?
We have had many reports of exactly this symlink problem, and each
On Friday, February 02, 2001 03:36:18 PM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm not sure whether this problem is related
to 2.4 kernel.
I suspect it is a reiserfs problem, and that you are using lilo older than
21.6. Are you mounting /boot with -o notail?
Regardless, I'm willing to bet
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 08:38:54 AM -0800 David Rees
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:47:09AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
reproduced yet).
Could
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 06:30:01 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my case, it's a SIS5513 board.
I have to note that I now have one case which is between offset 9260 and
11016. So probably the tails unpacking theory does not work out.
After a more systematical
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 07:41:25 PM +0100 Vedran Rodic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So could some of this bugs also be present in 3.5.x version of reiserfs?
Will you be fixing them for that version?
This list of reiserfs bugs was all specific to the 3.6.x versions, and they
don't
On Thursday, February 08, 2001 10:47:29 AM +1300 Chris Wedgwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
these appear on your system every couple of days right? if so... are
you able to run with the fs mount notails for a couple of days and
see if you still experience these?
my guess is you probably
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:05:51 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mhhh. It's a busy server from which I am about 700km away. I don't like to
restart it now. (Especially because it cannot boot from hard disk, only
from floppy disk, due to bios problems). But I'd be
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 04:35:32 PM + Tigran Aivazian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Under 2.4.1, after a little bit of running SPEC SFS (with NFSv3) I get
these messages on the server:
vs-13042: reiserfs_read_inode2: [0 1 0x0 SD] not found
vs-13048: reiserfs_iget:
On Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:31:43 PM -0500 Jeff McWilliams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having difficulty mounting a reiserfs partition after a power outage.
This is 2.4.0-test9 compiled with reiserfs as a module, and
Which reiserfs version is this? Upgrading to the reiserfs
On Thursday, February 08, 2001 04:00:26 PM +0100 Andrius Adomaitis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello,
I have dual PIII 800 machine running as mail server on DAC 960 RAID
reiserfs comming with 2.4.1kernel.
Under very high loads I get following messages in my kernel log:
kernel:
On Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:00:11 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Stone wrote:
On 11 Feb 2001 02:02:00 +1300, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:34:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
I run Reiser on all but /boot, and it seems to enjoy
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
If so, it may be caused by the problem fixed by Russell
On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 01:39:02 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris, your quoting is very confusing above. but I get your very
interesting remark (thanks for noticing) that the nulls are specific to
crashes on 2.2, and therefor could be due to the elevator bug on
Hello everyone,
I think Alexander Zarochentcev and I have finally figured out
cause for null bytes in small reiserfs files. reiserfs stores
parts of these files packed together in the tree, and the
packed bytes can shift around as the tree is balanced.
When converting from the packed bytes to
On Friday, February 16, 2001 05:01:39 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
Hello everyone,
I think Alexander Zarochentcev and I have finally figured out
cause for null bytes in small reiserfs files.
AlexanderChris, you are the masters! :-) (Yet
On Saturday, February 17, 2001 05:21:18 PM +0100 Frank de Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi'all,
Well, subject says it all... When I try to compile mozilla (CVS version)
with the '--enable-elf-dynstr-gc' option, the compile fails with a
segfault:
../../dist/bin/elf-dynstr-gc
On Sunday, February 18, 2001 02:10:50 AM +0100 Frank de Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least the patch didn't make it worse. Would anyone care to comment on
how the elf-dynstr-gc option changes the file access patterns for the
compile?
It does not change the file access patterns,
On Sunday, February 18, 2001 03:07:27 AM +0100 Frank de Lange
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And no, I'm not running RedHat 7.x for those who might think so (and
automatically blame everything on it).
Minor nit, but I'd rather clear it up now. Which distribution you run
doesn't matter for
On Monday, February 19, 2001 01:55:57 AM + Alan Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it had been cleared up. In particular, the Configure.help in 2.4.2-pre4
says "reiserfs can be used for anything that ext2 can be used for".
The configure.help is wrong on that and one other thing. NFS doesnt
On Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:40:24 AM +1100 Neil Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When reiserfs came along, it abused this, and re-interpreted the
opaque datum to contain information for recalling (locating) an
inode - if read_inode2 was defined. I think this is wrong.
I
On Tuesday, February 20, 2001 03:33:33 AM -0800 David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Kevin Turner wrote:
Version:
Linux version 2.4.1-pre12 (gcc version 2.95.3 20010125 (prerelease))
Possible suspect players:
dpkg seems to trigger the bug
ReiserFS is the partition that doesn't sync
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 09:54:19 AM +1100 Brian May
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"dek" == dek ml [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dek OK so I think what I can take from this is: for kernel 2.4 in
dek the foreseeable future, reiserfs over NFS won't work without
dek a special
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 01:44:10 AM +0100 Arnaud Installe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've had a problem with a reiserfs partition on a 2.2.17 kernel the other
day. Everything I did on it just waited forever. (Since shutdown tries
to umount all partitions the only way to
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 07:30:47 PM -0800 Linus Torvalds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
I'd love to hear the results from R5, as that seems to be the reiserfs
favourite, and I'm trying it out in 2.4.2 because it was so easy to plug
in..
On Thursday, March 22, 2001 07:04:52 PM + "Stephen C. Tweedie"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:42:15PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote:
I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment.
Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against
Mar 25 06:56:50 gip2 kernel: journal_begin called without kernel lock held
Mar 25 06:56:50 gip2 kernel: kernel BUG at journal.c:423!
Ok, this BUG is there to catch people trying to use the reiserfs journal
without the BKL held. Older ac series kernel had a bug where vmtruncate
would
On Thursday, March 22, 2001 01:42:15 PM -0500 Jan Harkes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found some code that seems wrong and didn't even match it's comment.
Patch is against 2.4.2, but should go cleanly against 2.4.3-pre6 as well.
Ok, this looks correct, makes reiserfs faster, and survived
On Monday, March 26, 2001 06:57:37 PM -0800 Christoph Lameter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Monday, March 26, 2001 03:21:29 PM -0800 Christoph Lameter
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2001 11:56:08 AM -0800 Christoph
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 08:21:07 AM -0800 Christoph Lameter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-debugreiserfs, 2000-
reiserfsprogs 3.x.0h
9454 is free in true bitmap
===
LEAF NODE (9454) contains
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 09:50:17 AM -0800 Christoph Lameter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, notice how entry 2 and 3 are the same file name? That is a big part
of your problem, and it should never happen with the normal kernel code.
The two lines that show up as (BROKEN) mean their hash
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:14:57 AM -0800 Christoph Lameter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
Just to make sure I understand, you had the exact same errors before
running fsck? Same files could not be deleted?
Correct.
I think this is a problem
On Wednesday, March 28, 2001 04:29:52 AM +0200 Elmer Joandi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tyan 260 Dual PIII, 512M RAM,
2.4.2-ac26,
mkreiserfs /dev/hda11
mount /dev/hda11 /mnt/space
cp -dpR /usr/* /mnt/space/
immediately:
Mar 28 04:23:17 server kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL
On Thursday, April 05, 2001 02:13:55 AM +0100 Alan Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a reiserfs security issue, but only of theoretical nature (Even
i= f
triggered, it won't harm you). But the reason for this bug is in NFS
(v2,=
If the blocks contained my old /etc/shadow I'd be a bit
On Sunday, April 08, 2001 03:43:19 PM -0500 xOr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[1.] kernel oops in reiserfs under 2.4.2-ac28 and 2.4.3-ac3 when rming
files
Ok, reiserfs must be picking the wrong member in an array of function
pointers, probably on a bad item from disk. We're testing some code
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 01:01:42AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:38:30 +0200 Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Doing some testing on CFQ, I ran into this 100% reproducible report:
===
[ INFO: possible
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:25:21AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
If so, writes to B will decrease the dirty memory threshold.
Yes, but not by enough. Say A dirties a 1100 pages, limit is 1000.
Some pages queued for writeback (doesn't matter how much). B writes
back 1, 1099 dirty
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 01:54:31AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
If so, writes to B will decrease the dirty memory threshold.
Yes, but not by enough. Say A dirties a 1100 pages, limit is 1000.
Some pages queued for writeback (doesn't matter how much). B writes
back 1,
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:58:16PM +0300, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote:
while triggering EIO in invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
...
With this patch aio-stress sees -EIO.
Actually if invalidate_inode_pages2_range() returns EIO it means
that internal kernel synchronization conflict was happen.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 06:11:55PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
How about this?
Solves the FUSE deadlock, but not the throttle_vm_writeout() one.
I'll try to tackle that one as well.
If the per-bdi dirty counter goes below 16, balance_dirty_pages()
returns.
Does the constant need to
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:14:15AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
In general, writepage is supposed to do work without blocking on
expensive locks that will get pdflush and dirty reclaim stuck in this
fashion. You'll probably have to take the same approach reiserfs does
in
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:21:09PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:50:48PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
aio is not responsible for this particular synchronization. Those fixes
(if we make them) should come from other places. The patch is important
to get aio error
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 09:47:11AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
How about this?
Solves the FUSE deadlock, but not the throttle_vm_writeout() one.
I'll try to tackle that one as well.
If the per-bdi dirty counter goes below 16, balance_dirty_pages()
returns.
Does the
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:01:50AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 19:21 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 04:50:48PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
aio is not responsible for this particular synchronization. Those fixes
(if we make them) should come
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:06:47PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
We don't try to resolve conflicting writes between ordinary mmap() and
write(), so why should we be doing it for mmap and O_DIRECT?
mmap() is designed to violate the ordinary mutex locks for write(), so
if a conflict
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:57:49PM +0300, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote:
Zach This addresses an oops reported by Leonid Ananiev
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zach as archived at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/8/337.
Zach This was tested by running O_DIRECT aio-stress concurrently with
buffered reads
The
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:17:51PM +0300, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote:
aio-stress command lines used for test
1) mem=1G in kernel boot param if you have more
2) mk2fs for test_file
3) dd if=/dev/zero of=test_file bs=1M count=1200
4) aiostress -s 1200m -o 2 -i 1 -r 16k test_file
Sorry, this
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 10:43:21 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 09:52:32AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
- The file block mappings must not change while loop is using the
file. This means that we have to ensure
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:54:59 +
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:44:57AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
IMHO this shouldn't be done in the loop driver anyway.
Filesystems have their own effricient extent lookup trees (well,
at least xfs and btrfs do),
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:03:24 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:54:59 +
Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 09:44:57AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
IMHO this shouldn't be done
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:01:18 +1100
Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday January 10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:31 +0100
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09 2008, Alasdair G Kergon wrote
Hello everyone,
Here is a modified version of Jens' patch. The basic idea is to push
the mapping maintenance out of loop and down into the filesystem (ext2
in this case).
Two new address_space operations are added, one to map
extents and the other to provide call backs into the FS as io is
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:06:09 +0100
Jan Kara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 02-01-08 12:42:19, Zach Brown wrote:
Erez Zadok wrote:
Setting: ltp-full-20071031, dio01 test on ext3 with Linus's
latest tree. Kernel w/ SMP, preemption, and lockdep configured.
This is a real lock ordering
Hello everyone,
The deadline for position statements to the Linux Storage and
Filesystem Workshop is here. Submitting a position statement
is an easy way for you to tell the organizers that you would like to
attend, and which topics you are most interesting in.
You can find all the details
Hello everyone,
I've just tagged and released Btrfs v0.9. Special thanks to Yan Zheng
and Josef Bacik for their work.
This release includes a number of disk format changes from v0.8 and
also a small change from recent btrfs-unstable HG trees. So, if you
have existing Btrfs filesystems, you
Hello everyone,
The deadline for position statements to the Linux Storage and
Filesystem Workshop is quickly approaching. The position statements
are an easy way for you to tell the organizers that you would like to
attend, and which topics you are most interesting in.
You can find all the
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:37:36 -0700
Mike Waychison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attempt to deal with races with truncate paths.
I'm not really sure on the locking here, but these seem to be taken
by the truncate path. BKL is left as some filesystem may(?) still
require it.
Signed-off-by:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:37:37 -0700
Mike Waychison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce FIBMAP64. This is the same as FIBMAP, but takes a u64.
If we're adding new ioctls, I'd rather see the FIEMAP stuff go
in, a quick search found discussions but has it died off?
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:57:06 +0100
Anton Altaparmakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
-bmap is ugly and horrible! If you have to do this at the very
least please cause -bmap64 to be able to return error values in case
the file system failed to get the information or indeed such
information
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:18:22 -0700
Mike Waychison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zach Brown wrote:
And another of my pet peeves with -bmap is that it uses 0 to
mean sparse which causes a conflict on NTFS at least as block
zero is part of the $Boot system file so it is a real, valid
block...
101 - 200 of 1532 matches
Mail list logo
