* [2.4] Is a negative rsect in /proc/partitions normal?
@ 2003-12-30 1:44 Mike Fedyk
2003-12-30 2:11 ` Andreas Dilger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mike Fedyk @ 2003-12-30 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I'm running 2.4.23-rc5, and I've been running bonnie, burnMMX and burnK7 for
the last few days on my 3 drive md raid5 array, and I noticed that my
rsects[1] have gone negative. I might consider this normal but /proc/stat
(which only shows hda) doesn't show any negative numbers for the same
stats[2]
Is this a bug?
[1]
major minor #blocks name rio rmerge rsect ruse wio wmerge wsect wuse running use aveq
9 0 319388032 md0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 1 96256 md1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 0 160086528 hdi 240438349 1318355451 -414508366 16504630 101146331 1132637971 1281537580 24939164 -3 18108868 28693926
56 1 96358 hdi1 58 28 178 1500 102 41 292 1710 0 3170 3210
56 2 289170 hdi2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 3 159694132 hdi3 240438290 1318355420 -414508552 16503120 101146229 1132637930 1281537288 24937454 0 19884967 309062
33 0 160086528 hde 240516418 1321486397 -388859454 40325686 90645794 1146603482 1312002136 18444936 -3 14785505 12315041
33 1 289138 hde1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 2 159790522 hde2 240516417 1321486394 -388859462 40325686 90645794 1146603482 1312002136 18444936 0 24147141 26883069
3 0 160086528 hda 240675036 1318323453 -412885008 27008859 110939441 1126008079 1306648420 28401642 -3 24294848 41908774
3 1 96358 hda1 44 53 200 610 102 41 292 1470 0 2010 2080
3 2 289170 hda2 207445 623814 6650072 2773650 7261 19429 224992 63170 0 1882590 2837130
3 3 159694132 hda3 240467546 1317699583 -419535288 24234589 110932078 1125988609 1306423136 28337002 0 4327510 10687939
[2]
cpu 73561013 1160924 31161337 40771206
cpu0 73561013 1160924 31161337 40771206
page 1152185038 1257557610
swap 834055 28177
intr 1291475450 146654480 8 0 0 4 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 351908342 0 341855446 0 331412420 0 0 0 0 119644745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
disk_io: (3,0):(352031779,240762616,3890919112,111269163,1325101012)
ctxt 2665965022
btime 1071282031
processes 889037
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.4] Is a negative rsect in /proc/partitions normal?
2003-12-30 1:44 [2.4] Is a negative rsect in /proc/partitions normal? Mike Fedyk
@ 2003-12-30 2:11 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-12-30 2:43 ` Mike Fedyk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Dilger @ 2003-12-30 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Dec 29, 2003 17:44 -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> I'm running 2.4.23-rc5, and I've been running bonnie, burnMMX and burnK7 for
> the last few days on my 3 drive md raid5 array, and I noticed that my
> rsects[1] have gone negative. I might consider this normal but /proc/stat
> (which only shows hda) doesn't show any negative numbers for the same
> stats[2]
>
> Is this a bug?
>
> [1]
> major minor #blocks name rio rmerge rsect ruse wio wmerge wsect wuse running use aveq
>
> 56 0 160086528 hdi 240438349 1318355451 -414508366 16504630 101146331 1132637971 1281537580 24939164 -3 18108868 28693926
> 56 3 159694132 hdi3 240438290 1318355420 -414508552 16503120 101146229 1132637930 1281537288 24937454 0 19884967 309062
> 33 0 160086528 hde 240516418 1321486397 -388859454 40325686 90645794 1146603482 1312002136 18444936 -3 14785505 12315041
> 33 2 159790522 hde2 240516417 1321486394 -388859462 40325686 90645794 1146603482 1312002136 18444936 0 24147141 26883069
> 3 0 160086528 hda 240675036 1318323453 -412885008 27008859 110939441 1126008079 1306648420 28401642 -3 24294848 41908774
> 3 3 159694132 hda3 240467546 1317699583 -419535288 24234589 110932078 1125988609 1306423136 28337002 0 4327510 10687939
Probably just somewhere printing out %ld instead of %lu or similar. I'm
sure a trivial patch to fix it would be accepted.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.4] Is a negative rsect in /proc/partitions normal?
2003-12-30 2:11 ` Andreas Dilger
@ 2003-12-30 2:43 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-30 11:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mike Fedyk @ 2003-12-30 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 07:11:06PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2003 17:44 -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > I'm running 2.4.23-rc5, and I've been running bonnie, burnMMX and burnK7 for
> > the last few days on my 3 drive md raid5 array, and I noticed that my
> > rsects[1] have gone negative. I might consider this normal but /proc/stat
> > (which only shows hda) doesn't show any negative numbers for the same
> > stats[2]
> >
> > Is this a bug?
> >
> > [1]
> > major minor #blocks name rio rmerge rsect ruse wio wmerge wsect wuse running use aveq
> >
> > 56 0 160086528 hdi 240438349 1318355451 -414508366 16504630 101146331 1132637971 1281537580 24939164 -3 18108868 28693926
> > 56 3 159694132 hdi3 240438290 1318355420 -414508552 16503120 101146229 1132637930 1281537288 24937454 0 19884967 309062
> > 33 0 160086528 hde 240516418 1321486397 -388859454 40325686 90645794 1146603482 1312002136 18444936 -3 14785505 12315041
> > 33 2 159790522 hde2 240516417 1321486394 -388859462 40325686 90645794 1146603482 1312002136 18444936 0 24147141 26883069
> > 3 0 160086528 hda 240675036 1318323453 -412885008 27008859 110939441 1126008079 1306648420 28401642 -3 24294848 41908774
> > 3 3 159694132 hda3 240467546 1317699583 -419535288 24234589 110932078 1125988609 1306423136 28337002 0 4327510 10687939
>
> Probably just somewhere printing out %ld instead of %lu or similar. I'm
> sure a trivial patch to fix it would be accepted.
struct hd_struct in include/linux/genhd.h:61 has them all unsigned int.
How's this patch look against 2.4.23?
--- drivers/block/genhd.c.orig 2003-12-29 18:35:35.000000000 -0800
+++ drivers/block/genhd.c 2003-12-29 18:40:11.000000000 -0800
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@
disk_round_stats(hd);
seq_printf(s, "%4d %4d %10d %s "
- "%d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d\n",
+ "%u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u\n",
gp->major, n, gp->sizes[n],
disk_name(gp, n, buf),
hd->rd_ios, hd->rd_merges,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.4] Is a negative rsect in /proc/partitions normal?
2003-12-30 2:43 ` Mike Fedyk
@ 2003-12-30 11:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-30 17:27 ` Mike Fedyk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Tosatti @ 2003-12-30 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mike Fedyk; +Cc: linux-kernel
> struct hd_struct in include/linux/genhd.h:61 has them all unsigned int.
>
> How's this patch look against 2.4.23?
>
> --- drivers/block/genhd.c.orig 2003-12-29 18:35:35.000000000 -0800
> +++ drivers/block/genhd.c 2003-12-29 18:40:11.000000000 -0800
> @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@
>
> disk_round_stats(hd);
> seq_printf(s, "%4d %4d %10d %s "
> - "%d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d %d\n",
> + "%u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u %u\n",
> gp->major, n, gp->sizes[n],
> disk_name(gp, n, buf),
> hd->rd_ios, hd->rd_merges,
Looks good, applied.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-30 17:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-30 1:44 [2.4] Is a negative rsect in /proc/partitions normal? Mike Fedyk
2003-12-30 2:11 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-12-30 2:43 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-12-30 11:58 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-12-30 17:27 ` Mike Fedyk
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox