Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*frequent\s+kernel\s+BUG\s+and\s+lockups\s+\-\s+2\.6\.39\s+\+\s+xfs_fsr\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 14:25:56 +0200
I get frequent (for servers) lockups and crashes when using 2.6.39. I saw the same problems using 3.0.0rc5, 5 and 6, and I think also 2.6.38. I don't see this lockups on 2.6.30 or 2.6.26 (all the res
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00104.html (7,708 bytes)

2. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 00:20:05 +1000
Tainted kernel. Please reproduce without the NVidia binary drivers. and when you do, please record an event trace of the xfs_swap_extent* trace points while xfs_fsr is running and triggers a crash. T
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00107.html (8,843 bytes)

3. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 03:42:38 +0200
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 12:20:05AM +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: This is just because it is form my desktop system. None of my other machines have a tainted kernel, but getting bac
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00114.html (13,832 bytes)

4. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 20:26:25 +1000
Use trace-cmd or do it manually via: Defensive? Sure - to protect -your systems- from further corruption problems until we know what the problem is. To use a car analogy: I know the brakes on your ca
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00115.html (17,992 bytes)

5. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 21:02:22 +0200
On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 08:26:25PM +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Thanks, I'll have a look at enabling this with a regular xfs_fsr on a few machines. To take your car analogy - if I
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00138.html (21,906 bytes)

6. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:16:43 +0200
This just in, this was on screen, xfs_fsr was active at the time, kernel is tainted: [248359.646330] CPU 1 [248359.646326] last sysfs file: /sys/devices/virtual/net/lo/operstate [248359.646323] Oops:
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00148.html (9,235 bytes)

7. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 12:10:48 +0200
First of all, please calm down. Getting personal is not bringing us anywhere. [snip] No, it's not a kernel bug because as long as you don't use xfs_fsr, nothing will ever happen. And the rest of the
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00151.html (12,015 bytes)

8. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:15:27 +0200
Well, it's not me who's getting personal, so...? "As long as you don't boot, it will not crash". xfs_fsr uses syscalls, just like other applications. According to your (wrong) logic, if an applicatio
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00152.html (12,499 bytes)

9. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 21:35:36 +1000
And the event trace to go along with the xfs-fsr run? I don't need to know the dmesg output - I need the information in the event trace from the xfs-fsr run when the problem occurs.... Cheers, Dave.
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00153.html (9,778 bytes)

10. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 18:35:25 +0200
It wasn't enabled yet, I didn't expect it to lock up so soon, but even if, we would have to wait for those rare occurances where the kernel oopses without the box locking up (can take months). And I
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00158.html (10,302 bytes)

11. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:31:38 +1000
They tell me where the crash occurred - they don't tell me the root cause of the problem. Understanding the root cause and fixing that is more important that putting a bandaid over the resultant pani
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00160.html (11,190 bytes)

12. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:59:26 +0200
A single rant from a dev shouldn't hurt one too much. He might have been sitting in front of some code during 72 hours, his eyes already being in 16:9 format staring at a weird bug... It's OK to stri
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00164.html (12,090 bytes)

13. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:16:19 +1000
Seeing you keep stating this is a problem, I'll ask again whether commit 778e24b ("xfs: reset inode per-lifetime state when recycling it") fixed this problem for you? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00185.html (10,219 bytes)

14. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:04:19 +0200
The NFS server apparently opens and closes files very often (probably on every read/write or so, I don't know the details), so XFS was benchmark-improved by keeping the preallocation as long as the i
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00223.html (13,659 bytes)

15. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:07:19 +0200
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:16:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I can only go by what _you_ told me earlier, namely that this works as designed and no change is needed. If you cha
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00226.html (10,776 bytes)

16. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:05:30 +1000
It only does that if the pattern of writes are such that keeping the preallocation around for longer periods of time will reduce potential fragmentation. Indeed, it's not a NFS specific optimisation,
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00229.html (12,882 bytes)

17. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Marc Lehmann <schmorp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:08:41 +0200
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 02:05:30PM +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: That can only be false. Here is a an example that I saw *just now*: I have a process that takes a directory with jp
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00477.html (18,730 bytes)

18. Re: frequent kernel BUG and lockups - 2.6.39 + xfs_fsr (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:45:58 +1000
That's the case of the unlinked inode being reused immediately and no having all it's state cleared correctly when recycled. That's the problem that was diagnosed and fixed when you reported the firs
/archives/xfs/2011-08/msg00558.html (12,346 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu