xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - fix panic caused by mix of local and remote access to xfs

To: Galen Arnold <arnoldg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: TAKE - fix panic caused by mix of local and remote access to xfs
From: <marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.3.95.1010530121407.17698H-100000@pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
linux-2.4.4-xfs

*****************************
Walter Marchuk
Senior Computer Specialist
University of Washington
Electrical Engineering
Room: 307g
206-221-5421
marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************

On Wed, 30 May 2001, Galen Arnold wrote:

> Walter,
> 
> Welcome to the club!  I can reproduce that behavior with 2.4.4-xfs and
> this iozone test (my host has 2G mem, so I test with big files):
> 
>       iozone -s 4000m -r 64k
> 
> My box also hangs (doesn't crash or panic).  Was that 2.4.5-xfs you
> tested, if so, you saved me the trouble and I'll delay my next cvs
> checkout/rebuild?
> 
> -Galen
> 
> +
> Galen Arnold, system engineer--systems group       arnoldg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> National Center for Supercomputing Applications           (217) 244-3473
> 152 Computer Applications Bldg., 605 E. Spfld. Ave., Champaign, IL 61820
> 
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > My fileserver has the latest XFS CVS kernel.  Yesterday the machine
> > crashed/froze  It stopped at 8PM right after this allocation failed
> > error.  Notice the time when the machine came back, 1AM (it was physically
> > rebooted).  
> > 
> > I did a search for this error and saw a correlation with xfs and this
> > error.  Do any of you know if the error and the crash was due to xfs bug?
> > 
> > May 29 20:01:09 gauss kernel: __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.     
> >  
> > May 30 01:34:19 gauss syslogd 1.3-3: restart.    
> > *****************************
> > Walter Marchuk
> > Senior Computer Specialist
> > University of Washington
> > Electrical Engineering
> > Room: 307g
> > 206-221-5421
> > marchuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > *****************************
> > 
> > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> > 
> > > > That means it's been tagged?
> > > 
> > > I am not sure what you mean by tagged, I checked in a fix for the problem
> > > with the implementation I checked in on Friday, and in cleaning my mail
> > > box I saw that I had said I would do a followup under the same heading.
> > > 
> > > Steve
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Austin Gonyou
> > > > Systems Architect, CCNA
> > > > Coremetrics, Inc.
> > > > Phone: 512-796-9023
> > > > email: austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sod's law says you find the hole right after you ship the code. 
> > > > > > There is 
> > > > a
> > > > > > bug in this code, I would not do a cvs update until I get a fix in, 
> > > > > > I kno
> > > > w
> > > > > > roughly how to fix it, but it will take me a while to code and test 
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would hold off on the cvs tree for a while until you see another 
> > > > > > messag
> > > > e
> > > > > > from me on this thread - probably not today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This was fixed over the weekend by the way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>