The added vmtruncate calls in the ac series trigger calls to the FS
truncate without the BKL held. Easy enough to fix on the reiserfs side,
but if other filesystems care we might want to change vmtruncate to grab
the lock before calling truncate (and update the Locking doc ;-)
-chris
-
To unsub
Hello everyone,
Since fs/pipe.c:pipe_write() calls mark_inode_dirty, and it is legal to
write to a named pipe on a readonly filesystem, we can end up writing an
inode on a readonly FS.
reiserfs prints a warning whenever someone tries to write an inode on a
readonly FS, so we've been getting a fe
On Tuesday, March 13, 2001 08:24:55 PM +0100 "Manfred H. Winter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> A few minutes ago, my system crashed on Linux 2.4.3-pre2. I attach the
> log of the crash and what ksymoops says about it.
Hmm, oops looks bogus, and the trace in the log file has some symbo
On Thursday, March 15, 2001 02:00:11 PM +0100 Andreas Klein
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ oops ]
>>> EIP; c016f090<=
> Trace; c0160046
> Trace; c015c8a8
>
> The machine is running linux-2.4.3-pre4 including the reiserfs-patches
> from Alexander Zarochentcev.
Ah, I see. objectid-sh
On Thursday, March 15, 2001 09:44:48 PM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David wrote:
>
>> 2.4.2-ac4
>>
>> Mar 15 18:02:49 Huntington-Beach kernel: end_request: I/O error, dev
>> 16:41 (hdd), sector 9512
>> Mar 15 18:02:49 Huntington-Beach kernel:
On Friday, March 16, 2001 12:32:56 AM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> > ObReiserfs_panic: what the hell is that ->s_lock bit about? panic()
>> > _never_ tries to do any block IO
On Friday, March 16, 2001 01:03:20 AM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ok, I was more talking about the ugliness that is reiserfs_panic (how
>> many times do we need a commented out for(;;)?). For panic() calling
>> sys_sync, I think there non-filesystem related panics where
Hello everyone,
This patch should close out the last known tail bug in my
queue. If you've still got small reiserfs files with the wrong
data in them, please start shouting.
The patch isn't very big, but changes some sensitive areas,
so I'm looking for more success reports on non-critical d
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 aga
>
> 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 t
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 surv
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 Saturd
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) conta
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 the
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
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 ke
On Thursday, January 25, 2001 05:23:26 PM +0100 Ondrej Sury
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2.4.1-pre10 slows down after printing those (maybe ACPI or reiserfs
> issue), and even SysRQ-(s,u,b) is not imediate and waits several (two+)
> seconds before (syncing,remounting,booting).
>
> ACPI: Sys
On Thursday, January 25, 2001 06:51:33 PM +0100 Ondrej Sury
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > reiserfs: checking transaction log (device 03:04) ...
>> > Warning, log replay starting on readonly filesystem
>> >
On Thursday, January 25, 2001 07:37:16 PM +0100 Ondrej Sury
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have discovered that it wasn't reiserfs problem. I have disabled ACPI
> in BIOS and everything is ok. So I assume that something has changed in
> ACPI between pre9 and pre10 versions and that something
On Sunday, January 28, 2001 02:29:09 PM +1100 Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shawn Starr wrote:
>>
>> Andrew, the patch HAS made a difference. For example, while untaring
>> glibc-2.2.1.tar.gz the system was not sluggish (mouse movements in X)
>> etc.
>>
>> Seems to be a go for la
On Friday, January 26, 2001 01:19:49 PM -0500 James Lewis Nance
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW IBM's JFS file system does not have a lost+found directory. I dont
> remember if reiserfs does or not.
>
reiserfsck creates it.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
On Tuesday, January 30, 2001 03:42:36 PM -0800 "Brett G. Person"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Worked fine here but i am getting segfaults on my Reiser filesystems.
> I've been distracted by a project over the last few days. Is what I'm
> seeing a symptom of the fs corruption people were talki
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
> partitio
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 lo
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
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 up
Ok, how about we list the known bugs:
zeros in log files, apparently only between bytes 2048 and 4096 (not
reproduced yet).
preallocated block leak on crash (fix in testing)
hidden directory entry cleanup (still reproducing, very hard to hit).
knfsd (patches in testing).
oops in reiserfs_sy
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 204
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 systema
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
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 probab
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:
>
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 t
On Monday 11 April 2005 03:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So anything that got modified in just one tree obviously merges to
> > that version. Any file that got modified in two trees will end up just
> > being passed to the "merge" program. See "man merge"
On Monday 11 April 2005 08:51, Chris Mason wrote:
> rej -M skips the merge program, so rej -a -M will give you something like
> this:
>
> coffee:/local/linux.p # rej -a -M drivers/ide/ide.c.rej
> drivers/ide/ide.c: 1 matched, 0 conflicts remain
>
> But I would want to
On Friday, May 18, 2001 01:26:01 PM +0200 "Martin.Knoblauch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Martin.Knoblauch" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I submitted this a short while ago, only to realize later that the
>> subject line was not very informative. Sorry.
>>
>> As a suggestion: maybe the reiser-to
Hi guys,
This patch has been lightly tested, I'd appreciate it if some of you
could try it out on data you don't care about. The idea is to
improve fsync and O_SYNC performance by only doing a commit on the last transaction
the file was actually involved in. The old code always forced a com
On Friday, May 25, 2001 09:21:42 AM -0700 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No, our policy is strictly in sync with and reflective of that of the
> rest of the linux-kernel. Since the ac series has a different policy, we
> can be different in regards to the ac series.
Not really, our
On Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:16:58 PM +0100 Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
>> in linux-2.4.5-pre*, so I think that a patch that adds a useful feature
>> like badblock support would be OK.
>
> FreeVxFS changes precis
On Wednesday, May 30, 2001 03:03:32 PM -0600 "D. Stimits"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
> RAMDISK: Compressed image found at block 0
> Freeing initrd memory: 249k freed
> VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem).
> Red Hat nash version 3.0.10 starting
> VFS: Mounted root (ext2 filesystem) rea
On Thursday, May 31, 2001 02:27:26 PM +0200 Lukasz Trabinski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello
>
> What it's means?
>
> portraits:~# dmesg
> vs-13042: reiserfs_read_inode2: [2299 593873 0x0 SD] not found
> vs-13048: reiserfs_iget: bad_inode. Stat data of (2299 593873) not found
> vs-13042: r
On Thursday, May 31, 2001 03:33:06 PM +0400 Andrej Borsenkow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This happened to me yesterday on kernel-2.4.4-6mdk (Mandrake cooker, based
> on 2.4.4-ac14), single reiser root filesystem, mounted with default
> options. Hardware - ASUS CUSL2 (i815e chipset), Fujitsu UD
> 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 int
On Saturday, June 02, 2001 02:41:04 PM +0200 Andreas Hartmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2001 12:52 schrieb Rasmus Bøg Hansen:
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
>> > I got massive file corruptions with the kernels mentioned in the
>> > subject. I can reproduc
On Saturday, June 02, 2001 12:19:59 AM +0200 Trond Myklebust
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Do you really need the parent inode in the filehandle?
>
> That screws rename up pretty badly, since the filehandle changes when
> you rename into a different directory. It means for ins
On Saturday, June 02, 2001 08:13:44 PM +0200 Andreas Hartmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2001 18:42 schrieben Sie:
>> On Saturday, June 02, 2001 02:41:04 PM +0200 Andreas Hartmann
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2001 12:52 schrieb Rasmus Bøg Han
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 ma
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 13:27:0
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 20:27, Rob Mueller wrote:
> > > We're also applying the attached patch. There's a bug in reiserfs that
> > > gets tickled by our huge MMAP usage (it's amazing what really busy
> > > Cyrus daemons can do to a server, ouch). It's fixed in generic_write,
> > > so we take the
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 20:42, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Sounds like a different issue. The patch Bron included before fixes (or
> > at least reduces to the point where it fixes it for us) a problem where
> > processes get stuck in D state and are unkillable. A reboot is required
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 20:50, Rob Mueller wrote:
>
> Are you saying that if you mount with noatime *and* use your new patch it
> will fix the problem?
>
> What about the 2 threads linked to. Did those end up getting anywhere?
Sorry for the confusion, you're hitting the other mmap_sem -> transact
On Friday 01 July 2005 03:56, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed major throughput regressions for random
> reads/writes with aio-stress in 2.6.12 ?
> Or have there been any other FS/IO regressions lately ?
>
> On one test system I see a degradation from around 17+ MB/s to 11MB/s
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 ens
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 b
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:31:31 +0100
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 09 2008, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > Here's the latest version of dm-loop, for comparison.
> >
> > To try it out,
> > ln -s dmsetup dmlosetup
> > and supply similar basic parameters to losetup.
> > (using d
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 +0
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Al Boldi wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > and then please update to CFS-v24.1
> > > http://people.redhat.com/~mingo/cfs-scheduler/sched-cfs-v2.6.22.15-v24.
> > >1 .patch
> > >
> > > > Yes with CFSv20.4, as i
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Al Boldi wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > Running fsync in data=ordered means that all of the dirty blocks on the
> > FS will get written before fsync returns.
>
> Hm, that's strange, I expected this kind of behaviour from data=journal.
>
&
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 about
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 will
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 deta
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:
>
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
compl
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
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:07:40 +0100
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I split and merged the patch into five bits (added ext3 support),
> > > so perhaps that would be easier for people to read/review.
> > > Attached and also exist in the loop-extent_map branch here:
Thanks!
> > >
> > >
Hello everyone,
Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from:
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/
Btrfs is still in an early alpha state, and the disk format is not finalized.
v0.10 introduces a new disk format, and is not compatible with v0.9.
The core of this release is explicit back ref
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:27 -0500
"Daniel Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 7:15 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Writeback cache on disk in iteself is not bad, it only gets bad
> > > if the disk is not engineered to save all its dirty cache on
> > > power loss,
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Btrfs v0.10 is now available for download from:
>
> http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/
Well, it turns out this release had a few small problems:
* data=ordered deadlock on older kernels (including 2.6.23)
* C
On Thursday 17 January 2008, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 1:25 PM, Chris mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, I've put v0.11 out there. It fixes those two problems and will also
> > compile on older (2.6.18) enterprise kernels.
> >
> > v0.11
On Friday 25 January 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
> > If ext3's DIO code only touches transactions in get_block, then it can
> > violate data=ordered rules. Basically the transaction that allocates
> > the blocks might commit before the DIO code gets around to writing them.
> >
> > A crash in the wrong
On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Al Boldi wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Chris Snook wrote:
> > > > Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > > This RFC proposes to introduce a tunable which allows to disable
> > > > > fsync and changes ordered into writeback writeout on a per-process
> > > > > basis like this:
> > > >
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:
>
> Filesyst
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 pl
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
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
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 P
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 cl
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
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 e
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 Saveliev
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. Th
On Friday, July 20, 2001 10:50:57 AM +0200 Trond Myklebust
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> " " == Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The current code does rely on hidden knowledge of the filesytem
> > on the server, and refuses to operate with any FS that does not
>
Hello everyone,
This patch makes reiserfs O_SYNC and fsync faster by only
committing the last transcation a file/dir was included in,
instead of forcing a commit on the current transaction.
More speedups are still possible, this patch is fairly conservative.
It is based on 2.4.7-pre6 + the dir
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 01:46:43 PM +0300 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>>> This fails to recover an object (e.g. dcache entry) which is used once,
>>> and then spends a year in cache on the same page a
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
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 ha
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 I'
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 cod
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
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
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 Debia
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
> reins
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 nvid
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
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 t
201 - 300 of 788 matches
Mail list logo
