RHEL 4 Compatible Kernel Module Code

RHEL 4 Compatible Kernel Module Code

[Stephen C. Rigler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 536 bytes --]

Greetings,

We are using CentOS 4.4 along with the RHEL 4 compatible kernel modules
(downloadable here:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4.4/centosplus/x86_64/RPMS/).

According to the CentOS mailing list, the person at SGI who had been
backporting the xfs code for RHEL4/CentOS4 has left the company.

Are there any plans to continue this work?  It seems like we are getting
bit by this bug: http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=410 but it
doesn't look like the fix has been backported to the RHEL4 kernel
module.

Thanks,
Steve

[-- Attachment #2: Forwarded message - Re: [CentOS] Re: XFS Issues --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5327 bytes --]

From: "James Pearson" <james-p@moving-picture.com>
To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos@centos.org>
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Re: XFS Issues
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:44:49 +0000
Message-ID: <a92ebfd90611081444y26b23c24yb13d1b20d22ce2d4@mail.gmail.com>

On 08/11/06, Stephen C. Rigler <srigler@marathonoil.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 11:06 -0800, Scott Silva wrote:
> > > Is there any chance that the fix will make it into the centosplus
> > > kernel-module-xfs?
> > Why not try installing 2.6.9-42.0.3 and see if maybe it is fixed?
> >
>
> I installed it on a different system and the modinfo for xfs still gives
> the same information:
>
> description:    SGI-XFS CVS-2004-10-17_05:00_UTC
>
> Has the module been updated since 2.6.9-34.0.1?

The kernel-module-xfs code hasn't changed in a while - that date stamp
is incorrect, but the code is more like a year old.

Unfortunately, the person at SGI that packaged up the code in the XFS
module for RHEL4/CentOS4 no longer works for SGI (I believe he now
works for RedHat).

So, I guess, unless someone else at SGI (or elsewhere) back ports the
more recent XFS code to the RHEL4 kernel, you are out of luck ...

Or you could use an up to date kernel.org kernel instead ...

James Pearson
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: RHEL 4 Compatible Kernel Module Code

[Eric Sandeen]

Stephen C. Rigler wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> We are using CentOS 4.4 along with the RHEL 4 compatible kernel modules
> (downloadable here:
> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4.4/centosplus/x86_64/RPMS/).
> 
> According to the CentOS mailing list, the person at SGI who had been
> backporting the xfs code for RHEL4/CentOS4 has left the company.
> 
> Are there any plans to continue this work?  It seems like we are getting
> bit by this bug: http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=410 but it
> doesn't look like the fix has been backported to the RHEL4 kernel
> module.

Hot topic today; see my reply on the centos list and other recent
threads on this list :)  I am planning to update the rpm package to
include some bugfixes soon, but it may not help your problems.

I had been tracking the sles9 xfs codebase as a fairly stable,
bugfix-only xfs codebase for this era of kernels; at this point I don't
-think- the extent changes you mentioned are in the sles9 codebase...
sgi guys?

It looks like you actually got a double-whammy; you probably have a very
fragmented file, which caused a large memory allocation on read, which
recursed into the filesystem, thereby blowing your stack (on x86_64!)
near as I can tell.  finding & defragging the fragmented source files
may be your best bet for now. To avoid it in the future, perhaps you can
use preallocation, if you have any control over the app which is writing
these.

For those interested, the original bug report was:
 http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-November/072221.html

-Eric

Re: RHEL 4 Compatible Kernel Module Code

[Timothy Shimmin]

Hi Eric,

--On 13 November 2006 12:09:32 PM -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:

> Stephen C. Rigler wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> We are using CentOS 4.4 along with the RHEL 4 compatible kernel modules
>> (downloadable here:
>> http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4.4/centosplus/x86_64/RPMS/).
>>
>> According to the CentOS mailing list, the person at SGI who had been
>> backporting the xfs code for RHEL4/CentOS4 has left the company.
>>
>> Are there any plans to continue this work?  It seems like we are getting
>> bit by this bug: http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=410 but it
>> doesn't look like the fix has been backported to the RHEL4 kernel
>> module.
>
> Hot topic today; see my reply on the centos list and other recent
> threads on this list :)  I am planning to update the rpm package to
> include some bugfixes soon, but it may not help your problems.
>
> I had been tracking the sles9 xfs codebase as a fairly stable,
> bugfix-only xfs codebase for this era of kernels; at this point I don't
> -think- the extent changes you mentioned are in the sles9 codebase...
> sgi guys?
>

If you are referring to Mandy's incore extent changes,
I don't see them in sles9 or sles10.

Having a quick look she has about 5 Mods.

 linux-2.4/xfs_ksyms.c |    7
 linux-2.6/xfs_ksyms.c |    7
 quota/xfs_qm.c        |    9
 xfs_bmap.c            |  725 ++++++++++++----------------
 xfs_bmap.h            |   30 -
 xfs_bmap_btree.c      |   10
 xfs_bmap_btree.h      |    8
 xfs_inode.c           | 1258 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 xfs_inode.h           |   71 ++
 xfsidbg.c             |   15
 10 files changed, 1548 insertions(+), 592 deletions(-)

Quite a bit of changes there for xfs_bmap.c and xfs_inode.c.

--Tim

Re: RHEL 4 Compatible Kernel Module Code

[Eric Sandeen]

Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> Hi Eric,

> If you are referring to Mandy's incore extent changes,
> I don't see them in sles9 or sles10.
> 
> Having a quick look she has about 5 Mods.

Ok, that's what I thought... pretty big change for a stable branch.  Though I'm 
surprised that it's not in sles10!

I do have an updated rhel4 module rpm going now; there were about 8 more patches 
that the sgi guys deemed worthy for sles9, so I merged them in.  Tidying up the 
specfile and need to do some tests; if anyone wants a preview, let me know 
off-list.  I hope to get it tested & available in a day or two.

-Eric