Eric,
I can't reproduce it with the stock kernel with only supermount enabled so far.
So maybe it's not playing well with the low latency patch even if just
compiled in, but not enabled in /proc. Or it was because I was using
the old xfs snapshot from 2.4.19 and not the 1.2pre-release. I'm gonna try to
add them one by one and re-test.
BTW, I think you should add the 1.2 pre-release in the snapshots on the webpage
so that people don't download the older ones if 1.2pre is more recent and
available. If I would have not checked the mailing list, I would have not
found
about 1.2pre. I looked at the weekly snapshot, and it hasn't been updated
for a while now.
-Christian
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Eric Sandeen wrote:
| Hi Christian -
|
| Reproducing this with the stock kernel & stock patches (preferably
| the 1.2-pre patches) would be most helpful, isolating bugs with the
| patch-set-du-jour can be rough.
|
| If you can't reproduce it with the stock kernel, add the patches
| one at a time and see where things fall apart.
|
| -Eric
|
| On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Christian Lambert wrote:
|
| >
| > I now disabled pre-empt, and basically the only kernel patch
| > I added was supermount+ O(1) batch scheduler and -aa vm patch. Now the
problem
| > seems to be different. If a process writes large files (about 1 or 2 gigs)
| > it will often hangs right when it reach the end of the file and it was
| > about to update the directory entry, it just hangs there. Top shows 100%
| > system usage (0% user) and I can't kill the process until it unhangs itself
| > which takes about 2-3 minutes. I'm using the 2.4.19 snapshot, but I just
| > saw that you have a 1.2 pre-release for 2.4.19, so I'm going to recompile
| > my kernel with that and just supermount. I'm also using vmware (which has
| > kernel modules) so i'm not sure if that has an impact or not, but I thought
I'd
| > mention it. I could reproduce it often but just doing a "cp -a dir1 dir2"
| > with a couple of 1 gig files in it.
| >
|
|