[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs [_fsr] probs in

To: Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs [_fsr] probs in
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:54:23 -0600
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Linux-Xfs <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <47B21327.3080502@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <47B0F00D.3060802@xxxxxxxxx> <20080212085802.GA155407@xxxxxxx> <47B2094D.50406@xxxxxxxxx> <47B20E84.6020707@xxxxxxxxxxx> <47B21327.3080502@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20071115)
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Linda Walsh wrote:
>>> David Chinner wrote:
>>>> Filesystem bugs rarely hang systems hard like that - more likely is
>>>> a hardware or driver problem. And neither of the lockdep reports
>>>> below are likely to be responsible for a system wide, no-response
>>>> hang.
>>> ---
>>>     "Ish", the 32-bitter, has been the only hard-hanger.
>> 4k stacks?
> ----
>       But but but...almost from the day they were introduced.  And
> these are more recent probs. Has stack usage increased for some reason,
> :-(.  I do have the option to detect stack-overflow turned on as well
> -- guess it doesn't work so well?

Resource requirements grow over time, film at 11? :)

the checker is a random thing, it checks only on interrupts; it won't
always hit.  you could try CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE too, each thread
prints max stack used when it exits, to see if you're getting close on
normal usage.

Or just use 8k.


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