From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1AC7F37 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 08:56:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A318F8039 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f47.google.com (mail-ee0-f47.google.com [74.125.83.47]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id lk4M4SSxXVnJVydz (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id t10so5441476eei.20 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 06:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 15:56:41 +0200 From: Paolo Pisati Subject: Re: 3.5+, xfs and 32bit armhf - xfs_buf_get: failed to map pages Message-ID: <20130529135641.GB4889@luxor.wired.org> References: <20130517104529.GA12490@luxor.wired.org> <20130519011354.GE6495@dastard> <20130520170710.GA2591@luxor.wired.org> <20130521000208.GF24543@dastard> <20130523143456.GB19815@luxor.wired.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130523143456.GB19815@luxor.wired.org> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, Paolo Pisati On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:34:56PM +0200, Paolo Pisati wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:02:09AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > And that fix I mentioned will be useless if you don't apply the > > patch that avoids the vmap allocation problem.... > > > ok, so i recompiled a kernel+aforementioend fix, i repartitioned my disk and i > ran the swift-bench for 2 days in a row until i got this: i'm testing a 3.5.y kernel plus those 3 patches: 549142a xfs: don't use speculative prealloc for small files f0843f4 xfs: limit speculative prealloc size on sparse files 454da09 xfs: inode allocation should use unmapped buffers. and i can confirm that: -using a small fs (2G) i cannot reproduce any -ENOSPC or vmalloc() problem anymore, the benchmark runs until running out of inodes -using a bigger fs (~250G), two days and my tests are still running good -- bye, p. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs