xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Patch 1300 & rpm issue with 1.3.0
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:37:08 +0300
Cc: Kai Leibrandt <k_leibrandt@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308260955410.8882-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com>
References: <20030826142327.GB3818@pua.nirvana> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308260955410.8882-100000@stout.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:58:44AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > Boy, that's an annoying bug...  it's somewhere in the guts of Red Hat's
> > > kernel + nptl patches + O_DIRECT + rpm.
> > 
> > This also bit me with the 20.9 kernel patched to XFS 1.3.0. It seems
> > 100% reproducible. :(
> > 
> > Why doesn't this show up with the binary kernels for 19.9? Or does it
> > but nobody reported it yet? It also didn't show up with XFS 1.2.0.
> 
> I think it does show up in 19.9.  For XFS 1.2.0, that was on a different
> underlying kernel - or have you merged 1.2.0 up to 2.4.20-19.9?

Yes, the atrpms kernels track latest RH errata and had (up to now) XFS
1.2.0.

> > > I think that Red Hat will eventually have a new version of RPM that
> > > works with this kernel.  In the meantime, I'd either:
> > > 
> > > a) rebuild with patch 1300 in place, if you don't care about using 
> > > O_DIRECT
> > > or
> > > b) set up an alias for "rpm" to prefix it with LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5
> > 
> > What are the drawbacks of these methods? Simply performance? a) seems
> > bad, because it will degrade overall system performance,
> 
> Not many things use O_DIRECT, actually.  And, well, it won't be any worse
> than what Red Hat ships originally - wihch turns off O_DIRECT completely
> with 1300.  We'd just be putting that back in place.

Hm, worth considering it for the 2.4.20 series (the actual errata
kernels). Latest rawhide/severn kernels have removed that patch. I'll
respin a test kernel with O_DIRECT disabled.

> > b) is difficult, because the used rpm application is not under
> > control of the kernel packager. :(
> 
> not sure what you mean?  That not everything will pick up the alias?

Yes, for instance. Delivering a kernel rpm does not guarantee that
people will read any accompanying documentation. So the next best stab
to the problem would be to build rpm without O_DIRECT support. Then
the kernel rpm would have to depend on a capability provided by the
fixed rpm rpm (yes, it's double ;).

But this opens a pit without an end ... :(
-- 
Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgpSAOHWiA9fo.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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