[BUG] Symlinks broken on 2.4.10-ac[3-4] nfs

[BUG] Symlinks broken on 2.4.10-ac[3-4] nfs

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Hi,

	I've found out much to my sorrow that the latest
ac's do not handle symlinks over nfs well.
For example, I get that kind of results :

lrwxrwxrwx    1 nim      cvs            92 oct  4 11:47
release.xml -> ../antbui
ld/init/release.xml?Q¿*U!±M~?Wè¢?0>Â%Ó?ª¯ô?ºªú]¡Úvä??®?§JO#b±?µøGé\?î1Ä?ü«B?´;??
ÐHT
lrwxrwxrwx    1 nim      cvs           387 oct  4 11:47 xml
-> ../antbuild/init/
xml£ú¢?ÛÕw?zê$ªEµ¶%Jº4­<?BÃÊY`L?è>=1Íî>Å?¹???§ÇÐ?ñú¸¬»??ÈÚ?¬q]?4ìG??Ã?´??è:»J]»ò
Ä?7¯ºËxxÍZ&?z³¬{??^¡9Lõ?|m?ש]?4?³iúÜ?NL·[#?|²ÕìcHh;û?r¤?$¤EÜI$íF?y???yíâ­?·??W9
m?1<FA?v*@KGü?Ü°¹dßl8?ì?íF°,óá&´l¾Ý¬ÈãS?ZÌ?¥M?iUi«b??c«âx.?Ðêýj?Êg?êf.f!ê?®pÊGêÆ
´??¾QÒAbwV1Û2áä1ÄL?QKè??ª?@¢Òaæà?Õ?±È??µ??,Å?u)ÉuRæ¶&T×Ï

after a 
[nim@ulysse ant]$ln -s ../antbuild/init/*xml .
[nim@ulysse ant]$ls -l

This is over an nfs mounted directory, server and client
2.4.40-ac4 nfs3, server-side fs : ext2

That's pretty ugly isn't it ?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Andrey Nekrasov]

Hello.

 1. hardware Intel ISP1100 (BX/1GB RAM/IDE DISK)
 2. kernel 2.4.11-pre2-xfs, with highmem support

 3. create ramdisk 512Mb and run "tiotest -c -f 110"
 4. 
 
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3d0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
 __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
 
 5. kernel compiled with gdb & have serial console.

-- 
bye.
Andrey Nekrasov, SpyLOG.

Re: 2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Steve Lord]

> Hello.
> 
>  1. hardware Intel ISP1100 (BX/1GB RAM/IDE DISK)
>  2. kernel 2.4.11-pre2-xfs, with highmem support
> 
>  3. create ramdisk 512Mb and run "tiotest -c -f 110"

And what type of filesystems were used? I am presuming XFS.

>  4. 
>  
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3d0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9

Can you map that address onto a symbol by any chance?

Steve

p.s. linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com is a good place to mail things like this,
messages posted to just linux-kernel tend to get lost in the noise.

>  
>  5. kernel compiled with gdb & have serial console.
> 
> -- 
> bye.
> Andrey Nekrasov, SpyLOG.
> -
> 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: 2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Keith Owens]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:01:36 -0500, 
Steve Lord <lord@sgi.com> wrote:
>>  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3d0/0) from c0127fe9
>Can you map that address onto a symbol by any chance?

ksymoops -A c0127fe9, using ksymoops >= 2.4.3.

Re: 2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Andrey Nekrasov]

Hello Steve Lord,

> >  2. kernel 2.4.11-pre2-xfs, with highmem support
> >  3. create ramdisk 512Mb and run "tiotest -c -f 110"
> 
> And what type of filesystems were used? I am presuming XFS.

ext2 & xfs , but whis test with ext2

> >  4. 
> >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3d0/0) from c0127fe9
> >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
> >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
> >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
> >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
 
> Can you map that address onto a symbol by any chance?

#/ksymoops-2.4.3/ksymoops -A c0127fe9 -m /boot/System.map
...

Adhoc c0127fe8 <_alloc_pages+18/20>

6.

...
swap_dup: Bad swap file entry 3f41e02c
VM: killing process forwarderng
swap_free: Bad swap offset entry 3ce50000
swap_free: Bad swap file entry 3f41e02c
swap_free: Bad swap offset entry 38bb5000
...

What is it? Kernel or may be my hardware problem?



7. Interesting result (xfs speed):

buran:~ # cat ram_disk_ext2 
buran:/ramdisk0/tiobench-0.3.1 # while (true) do ./tiotest -c -f 110 ;
sleep
60; done
Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:

,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU | Sys CPU  |
+-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+
| Write         440 MBs |   17.9 s |  24.646 MB/s |   0.7 %  |  60.8 % |
| Random Write   16 MBs |    0.5 s |  28.593 MB/s |   1.8 %  |  60.4 % |
| Read          440 MBs |   14.1 s |  31.167 MB/s |  28.3 %  |  43.6 % |
| Random Read    16 MBs |    0.5 s |  33.751 MB/s |  30.2 %  |  51.8 % |
----------------------------------------------------------------------'

buran:~ # cat ram_disk_xfs  
buran:/ramdisk0/tiobench-0.3.1 # while (true) do ./tiotest -c -f 110 ;
sleep
60; done
Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:

,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU | Sys CPU  |
+-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+
| Write         440 MBs |    7.9 s |  55.974 MB/s |   1.8 %  |  71.4 % |
| Random Write   16 MBs |    0.3 s |  45.764 MB/s |   0.0 %  |  55.6 % |
| Read          440 MBs |   11.1 s |  39.529 MB/s |  38.0 %  |  34.3 % |
| Random Read    16 MBs |    0.5 s |  32.868 MB/s |  27.3 %  |  42.1 % |
----------------------------------------------------------------------'






-- 
bye.
Andrey Nekrasov, SpyLOG.

Re: 2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Steve Lord]

> Hello Steve Lord,
> 
> > >  2. kernel 2.4.11-pre2-xfs, with highmem support
> > >  3. create ramdisk 512Mb and run "tiotest -c -f 110"
> > 
> > And what type of filesystems were used? I am presuming XFS.
> 
> ext2 & xfs , but whis test with ext2

OK, in which case I doubt that the changes XFS has in the kernel will
be influencing things - except xfs filesystems elsewhere on the system
will have hold of memory, although it should be reclaimable from ext2
just fine.

> 
> > >  4. 
> > >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3d0/0) from c0127fe9
> > >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
> > >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
> > >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x2f0/0) from c0127fe9
> > >  __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x70/0) from c0127fe9
>  
> > Can you map that address onto a symbol by any chance?
> 
> #/ksymoops-2.4.3/ksymoops -A c0127fe9 -m /boot/System.map
> ...
> 
> Adhoc c0127fe8 <_alloc_pages+18/20>

Oh well, thats really useful, maybe __alloc_pages should report on its
caller's caller.

> 
> 6.
> 
> ...
> swap_dup: Bad swap file entry 3f41e02c
> VM: killing process forwarderng
> swap_free: Bad swap offset entry 3ce50000
> swap_free: Bad swap file entry 3f41e02c
> swap_free: Bad swap offset entry 38bb5000
> ...
> 
> What is it? Kernel or may be my hardware problem?


Probably kernel, but I am not really an expert on this part of the system,
is your swap a device or a file on a filesystem?

> 
> 
> 
> 7. Interesting result (xfs speed):
> 
> buran:~ # cat ram_disk_ext2 
> buran:/ramdisk0/tiobench-0.3.1 # while (true) do ./tiotest -c -f 110 ;
> sleep
> 60; done
> Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:
> 
> ,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU | Sys CPU  |
> +-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+
> | Write         440 MBs |   17.9 s |  24.646 MB/s |   0.7 %  |  60.8 % |
> | Random Write   16 MBs |    0.5 s |  28.593 MB/s |   1.8 %  |  60.4 % |
> | Read          440 MBs |   14.1 s |  31.167 MB/s |  28.3 %  |  43.6 % |
> | Random Read    16 MBs |    0.5 s |  33.751 MB/s |  30.2 %  |  51.8 % |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------'
> 
> buran:~ # cat ram_disk_xfs  
> buran:/ramdisk0/tiobench-0.3.1 # while (true) do ./tiotest -c -f 110 ;
> sleep
> 60; done
> Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:
> 
> ,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU | Sys CPU  |
> +-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+
> | Write         440 MBs |    7.9 s |  55.974 MB/s |   1.8 %  |  71.4 % |
> | Random Write   16 MBs |    0.3 s |  45.764 MB/s |   0.0 %  |  55.6 % |
> | Read          440 MBs |   11.1 s |  39.529 MB/s |  38.0 %  |  34.3 % |
> | Random Read    16 MBs |    0.5 s |  32.868 MB/s |  27.3 %  |  42.1 % |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------'
> 
> 

That's good to see,

 Thanks

    Steve

> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> bye.
> Andrey Nekrasov, SpyLOG.
> -
> 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: 2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Andrey Nekrasov]

Hello Steve Lord,

> Oh well, thats really useful, maybe __alloc_pages should report on its
> caller's caller.

I am use gcc gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release).
May be with egcs will be better result?


> > ...
> > swap_dup: Bad swap file entry 3f41e02c
> > VM: killing process forwarderng
> > swap_free: Bad swap offset entry 3ce50000
> > swap_free: Bad swap file entry 3f41e02c
> > swap_free: Bad swap offset entry 38bb5000
> > ...
> > 
> > What is it? Kernel or may be my hardware problem?


> Probably kernel, but I am not really an expert on this part of the system,
> is your swap a device or a file on a filesystem?

/dev/hdg1             1      4145   2089048+  82  Linux swap


-- 
bye.
Andrey Nekrasov, SpyLOG.

Re: 2.4.11-pre2-xfs

[Eric Sandeen]

Hm, it works for me...

[root@iotest ramdisk]# uname -a
Linux iotest 2.4.11-pre2-xfs #1 SMP Thu Oct 4 14:17:48 CDT 2001 i686 unknown
[root@iotest /root]# free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       1028964      56752     972212          0       2092      24800
-/+ buffers/cache:      29860     999104
Swap:       530136          0     530136
[root@iotest /root]# modprobe rd rd_size=600000 rd_blocksize=512
[root@iotest /root]# mkfs.xfs -q -f /dev/ram
[root@iotest /root]# mount /dev/ram /mnt/ramdisk/
[root@iotest /root]# cd /mnt/ramdisk/
[root@iotest ramdisk]# /root/tiobench-0.3.1/tiotest -c -f 110
Tiotest results for 4 concurrent io threads:

,----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Item                  | Time     | Rate         | Usr CPU | Sys CPU  |
+-----------------------+----------+--------------+----------+---------+
| Write         440 MBs |    5.3 s |  83.600 MB/s |   2.3 %  | 193.4 % |
| Random Write   16 MBs |    0.2 s | 103.333 MB/s |   0.0 %  | 198.4 % |
| Read          440 MBs |    3.9 s | 114.117 MB/s | 146.5 %  |  52.9 % |
| Random Read    16 MBs |    0.1 s | 107.574 MB/s | 151.5 %  |  41.3 % |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

Andrey Nekrasov <andy@spylog.ru> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> 1. hardware Intel ISP1100 (BX/1GB RAM/IDE DISK)
> 2. kernel 2.4.11-pre2-xfs, with highmem support
>
> 3. create ramdisk 512Mb and run "tiotest -c -f 110"
> 4.
>
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed (gfp=0x3d0/0) from c0127fe9

--
Eric Sandeen      XFS for Linux     http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
sandeen@sgi.com   SGI, Inc.

Re: [BUG] Symlinks broken on 2.4.10-ac[3-4] nfs

[Trond Myklebust]

It's a known bug in the 2.4.10 NFS server code. The following patch
fixes it...

Cheers,
  Trond

diff -u --recursive --new-file linux-2.4.10/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c linux-2.4.10-symlinks/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c
--- linux-2.4.10/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c	Mon Sep 24 00:33:20 2001
+++ linux-2.4.10-symlinks/fs/nfsd/nfs3xdr.c	Thu Oct  4 12:59:49 2001
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
 	char		*name;
 	int		i;
 
-	if ((p = xdr_decode_string_inplace(p, namp, lenp, NFS3_MAXPATHLEN)) != NULL) {
+	if ((p = xdr_decode_string(p, namp, lenp, NFS3_MAXPATHLEN)) != NULL) {
 		for (i = 0, name = *namp; i < *lenp; i++, name++) {
 			if (*name == '\0')
 				return NULL;