2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[devik]

Hello,

I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
My SMP box was happily running 2.4.3 but after upgrade
to 2.4.18 I got 3 oopses in 4 days.
All was FS related, one during heavy access to SCSI and
IDE in paralel (I post ksymoops output recently but nobody
seemed interested) ane during cdrecord running in paralel
with SCSI HDD (IDE cdwritter) and latest when trying to
mount IDE ZIP drive with corrupted ZIP floppy. Latest
resulted in system panic and freeze so no output here :(

This is like scream into dark because I rebooted with
maxcpus=1 and it seems to be ok now and I don't want to
experiment with production server anymore.
But is someone knows the problem I'm willing to test some
patches, hacks .. etc
Seems to me like missing spinlock somewhere ..

thanks,
devik

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Kelledin]

On Thursday 18 July 2002 08:45 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 11:51, devik wrote:
> > I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
>
> PPro in my case but yes. 2.4.18 ought to be pretty solid
> except for some annoying bugs you'll only hit if you use
> smbfs.

I, too, am running a dual PPro box on 2.4.18.  It's been solid
from the get-go.

By the way, what are these bugs with smbfs?  I haven't hit them
on my dual ppro box, probably because the box never runs as a
samba client (just a samba server).

--
Kelledin
"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does
it still cost four figures to fix?"

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Richard Ems]

Running on 2 x Pentium III (Coppermine) (700 and 1000 Mhz) works also
ok.

Kernels are SuSE's k_smp-2.4.18-183, that means 2.4.19aa... + more SuSE
patches.

Sorry, no 2 x Pentium II.

-- 
   Richard Ems
   ... e-mail: r.ems@gmx.net
   ... Computer Science, University of Hamburg

   Unix IS user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 11:51, devik wrote:
> I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?

PPro in my case but yes. 2.4.18 ought to be pretty solid except for some
annoying bugs you'll only hit if you use smbfs. 

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Tommy Faasen]

> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 11:51, devik wrote:
>> I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
>
No problems on my side, on 2.4.18 and 2.4.18-wolk-3.5rc3.
> PPro in my case but yes. 2.4.18 ought to be pretty solid except for some
> annoying bugs you'll only hit if you use smbfs.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[J.A. Magallon]

On 2002.07.18 devik wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
>My SMP box was happily running 2.4.3 but after upgrade
>to 2.4.18 I got 3 oopses in 4 days.

Solid as a rock on dual PII@400. Anso on a Dual Xeon and on a bunch of
dual PIII boxes. Even I run jam kernels built with gcc3.1.1, but when
I get into trouble 2.4.18 is there.

-- 
J.A. Magallon             \   Software is like sex: It's better when it's free
mailto:jamagallon@able.es  \                    -- Linus Torvalds, FSF T-shirt
Linux werewolf 2.4.19-rc2-jam1, Mandrake Linux 8.3 (Cooker) for i586
gcc (GCC) 3.1.1 (Mandrake Linux 8.3 3.1.1-0.7mdk)

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[mbs]

I've had problems w/P4 SMP on 2.4.18 and RH2.4.18-3 where after a while 
(30-40 min after boot) it would slow to a crawl, and the disk would be 
constantly going, but CPU usage would be ~0%.  with 2 gigs of RAM and nothing 
running (not even x)....

RH2.4.18-5 does not seem to have the problem.

On Thursday 18 July 2002 09:53, Tommy Faasen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 11:51, devik wrote:
> >> I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
>
> No problems on my side, on 2.4.18 and 2.4.18-wolk-3.5rc3.
>
> > PPro in my case but yes. 2.4.18 ought to be pretty solid except for some
> > annoying bugs you'll only hit if you use smbfs.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
> > in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
/**************************************************
**   Mark Salisbury       ||      mbs@mc.com     **
** If you would like to sponsor me for the       **
** Mass Getaway, a 150 mile bicycle ride to for  **
** MS, contact me to donate by cash or check or  **
** click the link below to donate by credit card **
**************************************************/
https://www.nationalmssociety.org/pledge/pledge.asp?participantid=86736

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Keith Driscoll]

I've been running a stock 2.4.18 on this machine (2 x P-II 300) since May(?)
with no problems.  Unfortunately, I didn't see the original message (or don't
rember it), so I don't know what the OPs question/problem was.  

Keith.
> 
> 
> Running on 2 x Pentium III (Coppermine) (700 and 1000 Mhz) works also
> ok.
> 
> Kernels are SuSE's k_smp-2.4.18-183, that means 2.4.19aa... + more SuSE
> patches.
> 
> Sorry, no 2 x Pentium II.
> 
> -- 
>    Richard Ems
>    ... e-mail: r.ems@gmx.net
>    ... Computer Science, University of Hamburg
> 
>    Unix IS user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 


-- 
|Keith Driscoll				|  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?     |
|khd@ozarkwebworks.com                	| All opinions are MINE, MINE, MINE,  |
|					| and I refuse to share them with     |
| GO BUCKS!!! 		                | anyone, so there!  TPPPHT!!!!!      |

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Urban Widmark]

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Kelledin wrote:

> By the way, what are these bugs with smbfs?  I haven't hit them
> on my dual ppro box, probably because the box never runs as a
> samba client (just a samba server).

If you have characters in the filenames that doesn't match the charset you
use locally it will end up thinking that the name is 0xffffffff long and
oops when it tries to access beyond the mapped memory. The old code just
put a ? in the string.

/Urban

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[Chris Ricker]

On 18 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 11:51, devik wrote:
> > I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
> 
> PPro in my case but yes. 2.4.18 ought to be pretty solid except for some
> annoying bugs you'll only hit if you use smbfs. 

Or if you use data=journal w/ ext3....

later,
chris

Re: 2.4.18 is not SMP friendly

[devik]

Hi,
Yes I use smbfs.
Regarding my oops report, is there known
bug where waitqueue would be corrupted ? When I analyzed
it I found that invalid address 8bd4189c was loaded from
tasklist pointer in wait_queue_head_t (sched.c, __wake_up_common
line "p = curr->task").
The wakeup was called from get_new_inode and seems like
if list of tasks was not initialized of what :(

thanks, devik

On 18 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 11:51, devik wrote:
> > I someone here running 2.4.18 on PII SMP successfully ?
>
> PPro in my case but yes. 2.4.18 ought to be pretty solid except for some
> annoying bugs you'll only hit if you use smbfs.
>
>