RE: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>]

> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> 
> On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
> > I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
> > test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
> > on the same rotating disk as source and target of the kernel build,
> > the default install for a RHEL6 system)?
> 
> I'm using a normal SATA HDD with two partitions, one for
> swap and the other an ext3 filesystem with the kernel source.
> 
> > Or have you disabled cleancache?
> 
> Yes, I _did_ disable cleancache.  I could see where having
> cleancache enabled could explain the difference in results.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I meant to report this
earlier in the week and got tied up by other things.

I finally got my test scaffold set up earlier this week
to try to reproduce my "bad" numbers with the RHEL6-ish
config file.

I found that with "make -j28" and "make -j32" I experienced
__DATA CORRUPTION__.  This was repeatable.

The type of error led me to believe that the problem was
due to concurrency of cleancache reclaim.  I did not try
with cleancache disabled to prove/support this theory
but it is consistent with the fact that you (Seth) have not
seen a similar problem and has disabled cleancache.

While this problem is most likely in my code and I am
suitably chagrined, it re-emphasizes the fact that
the current zcache in staging is 20-month old "demo"
code.  The proposed new zcache codebase handles concurrency
much more effectively.

I'll be away from email for a few days now.

Dan

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>