From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: Oops with in nfsd - 2.4.19-pre6 Date: 14 Nov 2002 11:32:51 -0500 Message-ID: <1037291572.287.277.camel@tiny> References: <20021031210828.45F4A216991@server5.fastmail.fm> <1036099804.14984.165.camel@tiny> <20021112182949.45436c95.philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com> <1037211258.288.97.camel@tiny> <20021113194008.6dadeed5.philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com> <1037219001.21957.151.camel@tiny> <20021114170409.5f9b9108.philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20021114170409.5f9b9108.philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Philippe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gramoull=E9?= Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, jack@ucw.cz On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 11:04, Philippe Gramoull=E9 wrote: > On 13 Nov 2002 15:23:21 -0500 > Chris Mason wrote: >=20 > | >=20 > | > BTW, should i apply the patch posted on LKML ? > | > Subject:2.[45] fixes for design locking bug in wait_on_page/wait_o= n_buffer/get_request_wait > | =20 > | No, wait for that fix to get into a kernel before using it. There m= ight > | still be small modifications, and andrea might find a few other plac= es > | in the kernel with similar races. > | =20 > | The bug results in io stalls, and the machines that do see them stal= l > | for between 10 minutes and an hour. If you needed the patch you wou= ld > | have already been complaining ;-)=20 >=20 > Well, now that you mention this, i may also have it on my bug squash list= :o) > When we feed some files to a MySQL server ( 4 way box, lots of threads), = sometimes the > box does nothing , pretty much like andrea described it , so it may be th= at. Ok, that does sound like the stalling bug, especially since you've got 4 cpus. You can make it much less likely to trigger by lowering the threshold for where bdflush jumps in, but andrea's final patch should show up shortly. > | =20 > | Jan and I will get an updated quota patch asap, >=20 > This is just great :o) Do you have a rough idea when it will be > available ? couple days ? couple weeks ? Now that I've looked at it, I think the only reject is that parisc-32 already has one hunk applied, and x86-64 needs to have quotav2 support added. Neither one affects i386, but I'll do some tests here. Jan, am I missing something? >=20 >=20 > | and I'll have my > | attempted fix for the transaction overflow ready for you against tha= t > | set of patches in a few hours. >=20 > I already got your fixed and but it on 4 or 5 production boxes that trigg= ered the bug. >=20 > So far,it's been running fine :o) but without quotas ;o)) Ok, it survived heavier load here overnight. -chris