From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264026AbUESMmo (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 08:42:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264129AbUESMmo (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 08:42:44 -0400 Received: from smtp104.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.169.223]:7600 "HELO smtp104.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264026AbUESMmm (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2004 08:42:42 -0400 Message-ID: <40AB5639.7060806@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:42:33 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040401 Debian/1.6-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elenstev@mesatop.com CC: Wayne Scott , mason@suse.com, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, lm@bitmover.com, wli@holomorphy.com, hugh@veritas.com, adi@bitmover.com, support@bitmover.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: 1352 NUL bytes at the end of a page? References: <200405190453.31844.elenstev@mesatop.com> <1084968622.27142.5.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040519.072009.92566322.wscott@bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <20040519.072009.92566322.wscott@bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Wayne Scott wrote: > From: Chris Mason > >>Good to hear. We probably still need Andrew's truncate fix, this just >>isn't the right workload to show it. Andrew, that reiserfs fix survived >>testing here, could you please include it? >> >>-chris > > > BTW. We have had one other person report a similar failure. > > http://db.bitkeeper.com/cgi-bin/bugdb.cgi?.page=view&id=2004-05-19-001 > > But if sounds like this problem is now understood. It was a pleasure > to watch you guys, and someone should buy Steven a beer. Or perhaps > order a pizza for his family because I suspect this took some of their > time. > Yep. Thanks for your help Steven. I don't think anyone has cleared up the performance regression problem yet though, so I'll have to bug you a bit more. Steven, with all else being equal, you said you found a 2.6.3 SuSE kernel to significantly outperform 2.6.6, is that right? If so can you try the same test with plain 2.6.3 please? We'll go from there. This one isn't urgent, because I suspect it could be something specific to the SuSE kernel rather than a regression in Linus' tree - we've heard no other complaints... so just whenever you get the chance. Nick