Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*patch\:\s+double\s+freereq\s+freeing\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:56:35 +0100
Hi again, This looks like a merge error. I sent this to Russell last week too, when investigating the recent kio/elevator problems. It's not critical, blkdev_release_request clears rq->q and thus it
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00089.html (8,148 bytes)

2. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:15:09 -0600
I have that one in the tree with the elevator patch. I never got around to checking that particular fix in. I'm building the tree now I'll check in both fixes once I verify it builds. BTW as far as y
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00090.html (9,348 bytes)

3. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:20:57 +0100
Ah ok, so it didn't get completely lost :-) I haven't submitted it, so test12 is unlikely. Next version perhaps, at least some parts of it. Depends on Linus and what he thinks at this point. In any w
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00091.html (9,099 bytes)

4. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:46:49 -0600
I have discovered a corruption problem when using kiobuf io. I occurs both in the XFS-test11 tree and with your elevator patch. So it does appear to be the fault of the patch, although it does occur
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00092.html (9,740 bytes)

5. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:31:52 +0100
The most likely explanation is probably that blk-xx changes the I/O generated and thus the pattern of how soon / when corruption happens. We can easily do a small patch that enables log writes to not
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00095.html (9,548 bytes)

6. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:18:36 -0600
As I sure the above statement doesn't make much sense, I meant to say "it does NOT appear" to be the fault of the patch. Just to expand on the problem a bit; The corruption shows up under heavy load.
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00098.html (10,959 bytes)

7. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:04:32 +0100
Ah, this is indeed how I read it too. Or I would have corrected you :-) You mean lack of ordering with bh vs kio? Assuming they all make it to disk eventually, I don't see a specific problem that wou
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00103.html (11,355 bytes)

8. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:14:44 -0600
If both io paths are referencing the same area on disk, and thus the same page it is conceivable. One ot the things that doio does to force corruption. do normal read/write to a certain part of the
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00110.html (11,646 bytes)

9. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 02:03:02 +0100
Anything come of this? I haven't gotten any reports on how well it works. I'm just assuming it's perfect, I know people will complain if it either crashed or corrupts their data. Of course another op
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00153.html (9,489 bytes)

10. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:12:58 -0600
Sorry nothing yet. Martin said he was going to run some test but I haven't heard from him. Our test team sometimes take a bit of time to get up to speed. I'll push on them a bit more monday. I've bee
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00154.html (9,990 bytes)

11. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 02:19:58 +0100
Ok, this was also a message to the list saying 'if you've tried it, let me know what happened'. I use the code myself too, not just for XFS but as a test base for general kiobuf I/O. Great, I will te
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00155.html (10,413 bytes)

12. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 17 Dec 2000 01:24:58 -0500
[kiobuf IDE support] I've been pounding on it for several days now without any problems whatsoever. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc. mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.l
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00156.html (9,912 bytes)

13. patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:56:35 +0100
Hi again, This looks like a merge error. I sent this to Russell last week too, when investigating the recent kio/elevator problems. It's not critical, blkdev_release_request clears rq->q and thus it
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00304.html (8,148 bytes)

14. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:15:09 -0600
I have that one in the tree with the elevator patch. I never got around to checking that particular fix in. I'm building the tree now I'll check in both fixes once I verify it builds. BTW as far as y
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00305.html (9,348 bytes)

15. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:20:57 +0100
Ah ok, so it didn't get completely lost :-) I haven't submitted it, so test12 is unlikely. Next version perhaps, at least some parts of it. Depends on Linus and what he thinks at this point. In any w
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00306.html (9,099 bytes)

16. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:46:49 -0600
I have discovered a corruption problem when using kiobuf io. I occurs both in the XFS-test11 tree and with your elevator patch. So it does appear to be the fault of the patch, although it does occur
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00307.html (9,740 bytes)

17. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:31:52 +0100
The most likely explanation is probably that blk-xx changes the I/O generated and thus the pattern of how soon / when corruption happens. We can easily do a small patch that enables log writes to not
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00310.html (9,548 bytes)

18. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:18:36 -0600
As I sure the above statement doesn't make much sense, I meant to say "it does NOT appear" to be the fault of the patch. Just to expand on the problem a bit; The corruption shows up under heavy load.
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00313.html (10,959 bytes)

19. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:04:32 +0100
Ah, this is indeed how I read it too. Or I would have corrected you :-) You mean lack of ordering with bh vs kio? Assuming they all make it to disk eventually, I don't see a specific problem that wou
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00318.html (11,355 bytes)

20. Re: patch: double freereq freeing (score: 1)
Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:14:44 -0600
If both io paths are referencing the same area on disk, and thus the same page it is conceivable. One ot the things that doio does to force corruption. do normal read/write to a certain part of the
/archives/xfs/2000-12/msg00325.html (11,646 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu