Hi Dave and all,

The 99% cpu loop on tests/generic/308 (on "rm") happens also on
i686 (32bit), kernel 4.2.0 (gcc 4.9.1)

So, we can exclude it is a cross-compilation issue, or an ARM specific 
issue.
It should just be a 32-bit rch wide related issue.

I hardly found out the reason, at my opinion it doesn't have to be
fixed in xfs. I proposed this patch.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144330858305518&w=2

Let's see if the list reply.


Couldn't proceed still on the other "all hole" errors, will look into
that. As far as i know, tests as 009 seems to give same errors to
non arm users too.

Will investigate further.

Best regards,
Angelo Dureghello




On 24/09/2015 10:20, Yann Dupont - Veille Techno wrote:
> Le 24/09/2015 00:04, Dave Chinner a écrit :
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:43:21PM +0200, Yann Dupont - Veille Techno 
>> wrote:
>>> Le 22/09/2015 00:52, Dave Chinner a écrit :
>>>> As it is, I highly recommend that you try a current 4.3 kernel, as
>>>> there are several code fixes in the XFS kernel code that work
>>>> around compiler issues we know about. AFAIA, the do_div() asm bug
>>>> that trips recent gcc optimisations isn't in the upstream kernel
>>>> yet, but that can be worked around by setting
>>>> CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y in your build.
>>> Hi dave,
>>>
>>> I can confirm that CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y is (was ?) the only
>>> way for me to have reliable XFS kernel code on different arm
>>> platforms (Marvell kirkwood, Allwinner A20, Amlogic S805), no matter
>>> what recent gcc version I've been using.
>>>
>>> I must admit I was cross-compiling from X86-64 too, but I think (not
>>> sure) that it was also the case with native gcc.
>>>
>>> I must also admit that I didn't tried since some months, because
>>> CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y was the silver bullet for arm xfs
>>> kernel crashes. This crash was difficult to understand because it
>>> occurs quite randomly (I.e it can take several hours to trigger)
>>>
>>> If there's a patch floating around for gcc (or kernel), I'm
>>> interested to test.
>> See this subthread from august:
>>
>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-08/msg00234.html
>
> Oh, missed this thread.
>
> Thanks a lot for the pointer, will try this patch !
> Cheers,
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

-- 
Best regards,
Angelo Dureghello