From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id n0HNPNFH017072 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:25:24 -0600 Received: from zaphod.dth.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 661B599115 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from zaphod.dth.net (zaphod.dth.net [85.159.112.68]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eNpPTIHkA6fvQ4BI for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:25:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:25:11 +0100 From: Danny ter Haar Subject: Re: problems showing up as XFS problems on kernels after 2.6.28-git2 Message-ID: <20090117232511.GA8443@dth.net> References: <20090109020800.GO9448@disturbed> <20090109061043.GA31450@dth.net> <20090109194445.GA28759@infradead.org> <20090109195144.GA19857@dth.net> <20090109195852.GA6362@infradead.org> <20090109214206.GA2901@dth.net> <20090109220138.GA5282@infradead.org> <20090113200414.GA21013@dth.net> <20090116204346.GA5117@dth.net> <20090117073824.GK8071@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090117073824.GK8071@disturbed> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com Quoting Dave Chinner (david@fromorbit.com): > Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. No problem. I initally posted to LKLM, git redirected by Christoph to this list. I'm so stupid that i didn't check the other messages from this list. Sorry. > I think that Alexander tripped over this same problem during his bisect. > If you follow the thread from here: > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-01/msg00496.html Yep! [cheer] i'm not alone! :-) But why only us two ? there must be thousands of users out there using XFS. Why did it bite us ? large filesystem together with slow hardware ? > You'll see that Alexander had the same problem and managed > to continue the bisect once he copied the xfs_btree_trace.h > header file from top-of-tree back into the broken commits. Grwat. > I hope this helps (and I hope that the bisect lands on the > same commit that it did for Alexander). Do you want me to still try it ? I think you allready figured out where the culprit is ?! I saw changes in the announcement of 2.6.29-rc3 and took the plunge: # procinfo Memory: Total Used Free Buffers RAM: 506940 447868 59072 84 Swap: 497972 0 497972 Bootup: Sat Jan 17 10:28:27 2009 Load average: 0.03 0.11 0.09 2/104 5259 user : 00:09:30.12 3.2% page in : 417582 nice : 00:00:00.00 0.0% page out: 1220260 system: 00:02:01.76 0.7% page act: 41134 IOwait: 00:03:34.28 1.2% page dea: 13444 hw irq: 00:00:01.94 0.0% page flt: 1531395 sw irq: 00:00:04.50 0.0% swap in : 0 idle : 04:39:41.90 94.8% swap out: 0 uptime: 04:54:55.09 context : 892623 irq 0: 799012 timer irq 10: 101465 eth0 irq 1: 8 i8042 irq 11: 46893 sata_promise irq 2: 0 cascade irq 12: 0 uhci_hcd:usb1, uh irq 5: 0 acpi irq 14: 50059 pata_via irq 7: 1 parport0 irq 15: 0 pata_via sda 15445r 22597w sdb 2820r 23372w sda1 555r 284w sdb1 2750r 23372w sda2 2r 0w sdc 63r 3w sda5 136r 0w sdc1 50r 3w sda6 14659r 22313w lo TX 59.65KiB RX 59.65KiB eth0 TX 13.40MiB RX 23.78MiB over 4 hours of uptime and moderate usage, so i'm not 100% convinced but this one looks good (so far) Let me know if i should persue some more. Thanks for all the help. Danny -- _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs