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 (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3M2X4O1165947 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:33:05 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 84BC422E8BF for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eZW8aAAzbc7Ydx3b for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49EE81DB.7040304@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:32:59 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Oops at xfs_bmbt_get_startoff in SLES 10 2.6.16 References: <64323.24.80.224.145.1236883814.squirrel@squirrel.kevinjamieson.com> <49B9611F.5040009@sandeen.net> <58707.24.80.224.145.1236899620.squirrel@squirrel.kevinjamieson.com> <53630.24.80.224.145.1240361692.squirrel@squirrel.kevinjamieson.com> <49EE7E17.8050006@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: 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: Felix Blyakher Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Felix Blyakher wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> Kevin Jamieson wrote: >>> On Thu, March 12, 2009 4:13 pm, Kevin Jamieson wrote: >>>> On Thu, March 12, 2009 12:23 pm, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> >>>>> For SLES that usually is the best route... >>>>> >>>>> However, http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00220.html >>>>> looks >>>>> applicable... don't think it ever got merged though. >>>>> >>>>> perhaps you could test it? >>>> Thanks, Eric. I will test Lachlan's patch on our system. >>> To follow this up, since applying the patch from the above thread >>> there >>> have been no re-occurrences of the issue on our test servers over >>> the past >>> month. >> And you hit it pretty reliably before, right? Sounds like we need to >> give that a pretty strong eyeball and get it merged, perhaps. > > I was looking at this patch too. > But I could never reproduce the problem, even with Lachlan's test > program. Kevin, any idea what kind of io load triggered this problem? > The patch looks right, but I really want to prove the problem > exists, and the patch addresses it. > > Felix > FWIW I can't reproduce either, with the stated commandline. Should try it with a 1k blocksize, though - maybe Lachlan tested 4k on 16k page ia64? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs