From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id oAQMep3V206814 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:40:51 -0600 Received: from BLADE3.ISTI.CNR.IT (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C55281C78D55 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLADE3.ISTI.CNR.IT (blade3.isti.cnr.it [194.119.192.19]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id BVzDIW2HZaNF9OCr for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:42:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from SCRIPT-SPFWL-DAEMON.mx.isti.cnr.it by mx.isti.cnr.it (PMDF V6.5 #31825) id <01NUQAYJSFOWLKPH5Z@mx.isti.cnr.it> for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:41:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from conversionlocal.isti.cnr.it by mx.isti.cnr.it (PMDF V6.5 #31825) id <01NUQAYINZGGLS534R@mx.isti.cnr.it> for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:41:19 +0100 (MET) Received: from [164.132.138.155] by mx.isti.cnr.it (PMDF V6.5 #31826) with ESMTPSA id <01NUQAYFWGGYLOFEQZ@mx.isti.cnr.it> for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:41:18 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 23:43:26 +0100 From: Spelic Subject: Re: Xfs delaylog hanged up In-reply-to: <4CED973B.60102@shiftmail.org> Message-id: <4CF0380E.5000706@shiftmail.org> MIME-version: 1.0 References: <4CEAC412.9000406@shiftmail.org> <4CED973B.60102@shiftmail.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 11/24/2010 11:52 PM, Spelic wrote: > On 11/22/2010 08:27 PM, Spelic wrote: >> .... >> I was doing a parallel-kernel-unpack benchmark: >> .... > > I tried to reproduce it today but unfortunately I wasn't able to, not > even on the same hardware. > > The first time it happened so soon after starting such > parallel-kernel-unpack benchmark (at the second run!) that I was > confident it was possible to reproduce it easily, but today in many > hours it never happened again. Sorry. Unfortunately the machine is > going back to production soon so I'm not sure I can do further testing. I had another smaller hangup, and unfortunately I wasn't paying attention. I just noticed that between a zillion runs of the "benchmark" taking 1 minute (for the part before the sync) I just had one that took 2m30s for the same part. The system was absolutely idle except that test so I can't really see an explanation other than being another smaller hangup... The good news is that it definitely came out of the hangup by itself: this time I didn't press Ctrl-C. So even if it was an xfs bug it doesn't seem fatal. The dmesg this time showed nothing; probably because the hangup this time was shorter than 120 seconds so the watchdog didn't notice anything. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs