From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3M2cBvh166206 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:38:11 -0500 Received: from mail.sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 245F4143BF5B for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id qMfdvqTjOxj2kgsW for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:40:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49EE830E.6020808@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:38:06 -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> <49EE81DB.7040304@sandeen.net> <53FCDA81-0C62-4B16-AAA7-C2FF03C78D01@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <53FCDA81-0C62-4B16-AAA7-C2FF03C78D01@sgi.com> 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 9:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> 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? > > That's what I've tested on. Ah, well, I just spoke with Lachlan and he said he tested on x86_64, 4k/4k. So hrm... -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs