Hi Bill, On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:58:22 -0600, "Dunphy, Bill" wrote: > An update. > > I've just begun some testing on a different reference design board > utilizing the 88F6281. This particular board has native support in the > 2.6.30 kernel which allowed me to give the in-tree version of NILFS a > go. This board/kernel version combination ran though the testing > mentioned below without a hitch this weekend (1 million loops). I've > since performed a number of massive simultaneous data transfers without > any errors. Performance appeared to be much better from a high level as > well. So at this point, it appears to me that there is a NILFS > sensitivity to the 2.6.22.18 kernel and/or a board oddity (even though > other file systems worked flawlessly). My near term plan is to move > forward with this new board/kernel combination. However, I will keep > the original board and it's 2.6.22.18 kernel up and available if you > would like me to try some other changes - you decide. In the meanwhile, > I'll start banging away on this platform and report in if I see any > strange behavior. > > Bill
Sorry for my late reply. I found an inconsistent state in the value of sequence counter shown in your log. I think some sort of synchronization problem is present. If so, I think we should resolve the problem because it may occur in any RISC architectures. Could you test if the attached patch makes a difference? The patch adds volatile specifiers to sequence counters which may be shared among different tasks. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi > -----Original Message----- > From: Dunphy, Bill > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:01 AM > To: 'Ryusuke Konishi' > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NILFS users] Write hang on ARM based target > > Thanks. That patch integrated successfully. > > Ran it again with the following result: > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: ========= NILFS SEGMENT INFORMATION ======== > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: full segment: segnum=39, start=79872, end=81919 > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: partial segment: start=81162, rest=758 > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: ------------------ SUMMARY ----------------- > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: nfinfo = 4 (number of files) > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: nblocks = 14 (number of blocks) > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: sumbytes = 312 (size of summary in bytes) > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: nsumblk = 1 (number of summary blocks) > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: flags = LOGBGN|LOGEND|SR > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: ============================================ > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) > nilfs_segctor_update_payload_blocknr: called > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) > nilfs_segctor_update_payload_blocknr: done > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_fill_in_file_bmap: > called > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_fill_in_file_bmap: > done > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_fill_in_checkpoint: > called > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_fill_in_checkpoint: > done > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_update_segusage: > called > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_update_segusage: > done > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_fill_in_checksums: > called > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_fill_in_checksums: > done > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segbuf_write: submitting > summary blocks > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_alloc_seg_bio: allocated > bio (max_vecs=16) > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segbuf_write: submitting > normal blocks (index=1) > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_submit_seg_bio: submitting > bio (start_sector=649296, size=57344,) Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: > NILFS(segment) nilfs_segbuf_write: submitted a segment (err=0, > pseg_start=81162, #req) > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segbuf_wait: called nbio=1 > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segbuf_wait: wait completed > > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_complete_write: > completing segment (flags=0x7) > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_complete_write: > completed a segment having a super root ) > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_do_construct: > submitted all segments > Jun 19 08:38:26 kernel: NILFS(segment) nilfs_segctor_construct: end > (stage=9) diff --git a/fs/segment.c b/fs/segment.c index 84201ce..c9c28c2 100644 --- a/fs/segment.c +++ b/fs/segment.c @@ -2530,7 +2530,7 @@ void nilfs_segctor_clear_segments_to_be_freed(struct nilfs_sc_info *sci) struct nilfs_segctor_wait_request { wait_queue_t wq; - __u32 seq; + volatile __u32 seq; int err; atomic_t done; }; @@ -2699,7 +2699,7 @@ int nilfs_construct_dsync_segment(struct super_block *sb, struct inode *inode, struct nilfs_segctor_req { int mode; - __u32 seq_accepted; + volatile __u32 seq_accepted; int sc_err; /* construction failure */ int sb_err; /* super block writeback failure */ }; diff --git a/fs/segment.h b/fs/segment.h index 44dca64..8533783 100644 --- a/fs/segment.h +++ b/fs/segment.h @@ -163,8 +163,8 @@ struct nilfs_sc_info { wait_queue_head_t sc_wait_daemon; wait_queue_head_t sc_wait_task; - __u32 sc_seq_request; - __u32 sc_seq_done; + volatile __u32 sc_seq_request; + volatile __u32 sc_seq_done; int sc_sync; unsigned long sc_interval; -- 1.6.2 _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
