<Seth Mos wrote:>
|At 08:19 2-10-2001 -1000, Sidik Isani wrote:
|> I'm having a problem with XFS and/or the 2.4.6 kernel. Since
|> 2.4.6+XFS is not an official release, I'm guessing the first
|> thing would be to use 2.4.5-xfs-1.0.1... unless this is a known
|> problem which 2.4.5 might have as well? In any case, I'd like
|> your advice on which version to use, to try and recreate this
|> and get more debugging information. (I know what I've included
|> is probably not enough.)
|Can you try a CVS kernel?
Sure. Though I am testing this stuff for eventual use on
|> The symptoms are files which were written *minutes* ago retain
|> the right size, but seem to develop blocks full of zero bytes.
|> I think this mostly happens when memory runs very low, but I'm
|> not sure. I'm running an SMP kernel, with no swap space, and I'm
|> writing files to "tmpfs" at the same time. (With the UP kernel,
|> I've noticed a different, but possibly related problem when
|> memory runs low where bdflush gets stuck taking 100% of the CPU.)
|What compiler did you use? Egcs 1.1.2 is the recommended compiler for
gcc-2.95.3 -g -O
|> Usually, there are no errors from the kernel while this is
|> happening, but eventually I got these:
|>kernel BUG at ll_rw_blk.c:700!
|>invalid operand: 0000
|> And "free" showed:
|> total used free shared buffers cached
|>Mem: 254120 243684 10436 0 51688 215380
|>-/+ buffers/cache: -23384 277504
|>Swap: 0 0 0
|Why run without swap?
On this machine, there is no good reason. I will try to create some,
and see if the same problem occurs when both swap and memory fill
up or not. Other similar machines need to be disk-less NFS-root
but those won't exercise their XFS, code of course. Is there a
fundamental difference between having, say, 1 GB of RAM versus
512MB RAM + 512 Swap?
Be seeing you,