[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: write back inodes during reclaim

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: write back inodes during reclaim
From: Yann Dupont <Yann.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:13:57 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110415075440.GN21395@dastard>
References: <1302157196-1988-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4DA7F286.8090905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110415075440.GN21395@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110207 Shredder/3.1.9pre
Le 15/04/2011 09:54, Dave Chinner a écrit :
{In future can you make sure you don't line wrap stack traces? they
turn into an utter mess when being quoted if you wrap them}

woops, sorry :( I just copied/paste from our internal request tracker, so the trace may have been mangled there.

This, I'd say, has nothing to do with XFS - the system has taken a
network interrupt and failed an allocation in bnx2 NIC driver. You
chopped off the line that describes the actual allocation parameters
that failed, so I can't really say why it failed...

once again sorry. I'm not used to send stack traces so often.
I'll try to send clean traces, only if you think it may have something to do with xfs.

We have a lot of thoses traces, this particular one may not be the best to describe the problem. My apologies.

None right now - the patch is dead in the water right now because of
lock inversion issues it causes. Even so, I doubt I'd be back
porting it to any stable kernel without having anyone report that it
is the root cause of their OOM problems.

- Is mounting with noatime can alleviate the problem ?
The problem that the patch I posted were supposed to fix, yes. The
problem you are reporting here, most likely not.
thanks for your quick answer,


Yann Dupont - Service IRTS, DSI Université de Nantes
Tel : - Mail/Jabber : Yann.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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