Re: 2.4.19-pre6aa1 oops

[Jim Eshleman <jce0@Lehigh.EDU>]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:26:46AM -0500, Stephen Lord wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 10:17, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 09:50:31AM -0400, Jim Eshleman wrote:
>>>
>>>>  After two weeks of uneventful uptime with -pre6aa1 the system hung 
>>>>with no symptoms, no messages, no way in.  XFS filesystems recovered 
>>>>themselves on reboot with no apparent problems.  About twelve hours 
>>>>later got the appended oops, in the early AM.  I suspect it may have 
>>>>been triggered by the system backup, which is now stuck in D state. 
>>>>Otherwise the system is running normally except loadavg is high (6-7) 
>>>>even though there is little CPU and IO usage.
>>>
>>>I would suggest a full forced fsck and an upgrade to 2.4.19pre8aa3 that
>>>includes the xfs 1.1 release (it fixes various xfs issues compared to
>>>2.4.19pre6aa1). Personally I mostly care about the glue between xfs and
>>>mainline kernel, so for specific xfs bugs you were right to CC the xfs
>>>mailing list.
>>>
>>>Andrea
>>
>>Well with xfs there is no fsck, but there is xfs_repair which is
>>the equivalent. You can also run xfs_check which will not fix a
>>filesystem but runs an extensive set of checks on its consistency.
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
>>Andrea the interfaces between xfs and the kernel are about to change,
>>we will no longer require code in vmscan.c and the code in buffer.c
>>gets simpler.
>>
>>I was not aware that the xfs code in the aa kernels still
>>predated 1.1, in that case upgrading is definitely a good idea.
> 
> 
> the reason is that at the time 2.4.19pre6aa1 was released xfs 1.1 wasn't
> yet released.
> 
> Andrea

   Will do.  Thank you Andrea and Steve.

Jim