Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*New\s+xfstests\s+generic\/308\s+causes\s+XFS\s+hang\s+\(high\s+CPU\s+use\)\,\s+at\s+least\s+on\s+32\-bit\s*$/: 5 ]

Total 5 documents matching your query.

1. New xfstests generic/308 causes XFS hang (high CPU use), at least on 32-bit (score: 1)
Author: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:46:47 -0400
Hi! On my 32-bit Pentium III PC, xfstests generic/308 uses xfs_io, and that xfs_io hangs the XFS file system without causing a crash. In other words, the FS cannot be umounted, xfs_io can't be killed
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00205.html (62,641 bytes)

2. Re: New xfstests generic/308 causes XFS hang (high CPU use), at least on 32-bit (score: 1)
Author: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:06:02 -0400
The PC uses kernel 3.8-rc4 + Dave's CRC v4 patches + J. Liu's bitness patch. Oops, that was supposed to be "kernel 3.9-rc4." Sorry. Michael
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00207.html (8,968 bytes)

3. Re: New xfstests generic/308 causes XFS hang (high CPU use), at least on 32-bit (score: 1)
Author: Rich Johnston <rjohnston@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:18:21 -0500
The PC uses kernel 3.8-rc4 + Dave's CRC v4 patches + J. Liu's bitness patch. Oops, that was supposed to be "kernel 3.9-rc4." Sorry. Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailin
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00209.html (9,109 bytes)

4. Re: New xfstests generic/308 causes XFS hang (high CPU use), at least on 32-bit (score: 1)
Author: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:31:17 -0400
On casual glance, it looks like a test meant to test the end of 32-bit offsets, built to test a specific ext4 case, and it happened to strafe XFS on 32-bit in the process.  It is unknown to me whethe
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00210.html (10,549 bytes)

5. Re: New xfstests generic/308 causes XFS hang (high CPU use), at least on 32-bit (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:51:09 +0800
Hi Michael, I think this is a bug for x86 only and it is irrelevant to above patches(You have also mentioned in another email). AFAICS, it is caused by the 2nd test case in 308, i.e. offset=$(((2**32
/archives/xfs/2013-04/msg00268.html (10,466 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu