Re: 2.4.22-pre lockups (now decoded oops for pre10)

[Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:18:32PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0100
> Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Maw, 2003-08-19 at 08:12, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > > > Are you saying that one CPU can't saturate the memory bus?  Or maybe
> > > > we're hitting something on the CPU bus, or just that SMP will change the
> > > > timings and stress things differently?  Or that if memtest doesn't test
> > > > from the second CPU then it could be a faulty cpu/L2?
> > > 
> > > Well, if memtest does not use a second available CPU then probably we
> > > should ask the author about this...
> > 
> > I'm sure he'd give you a quote for adding SMP support if you asked.
> 
> Well, actually I don't want to burn down his time as long as I don't see a need
> for it. Since I am pretty confident to make the box work in SMP under 2.4.20 a
> memtest will most certainly not give any additional information, be it running
> UP or SMP.
> Instead I will invest another day and convert the whole system back to
> reiserfs, because the ext3 fs cannot be used under 2.4.20 - I don't know why.
> Additionally reiserfs is better for testing possible patches because it crashes
> in much shorter time than ext3 setup.
> 2.4.20 setup gives me a simple testcase to prove people right or wrong that are
> talking about a hardware issue.

Are you doing a lot of directory operations, or is it mostly just large
amounts of data transfering over NFS?

The reason why I ask, is that I know that at least JFS and possibly XFS uses
trees for their directory structures, and might show similar problems (with
its large use of trees), if you did a lot of directory operations on the
other filesystems.

Then maybe it could rule out reiserfs.  Though it still did show up on ext3...