yes, but what about memory? I speculate that this is an Intel-based
system that is relatively memory-starved.
Yes, its an intel system, since still has problems to deliver AMD quadcores.
Anyway, I don't believe the systems memory bandwidth is only
6 x 280 MB/s = 1680 MB/s (280 MB/s is the maximum I measured per scsi
channel). Actually, the measured bandwith of this system is 4 GB/s.
4 GB/s is terrible, especially for 8 cores, but perhaps you know this.
With 2.6.23 and enabled debugging we now nicely get softlockups.
[ 187.913000] Call Trace:
[ 187.917128] [<ffffffff8020d3c1>] show_trace+0x41/0x70
[ 187.922401] [<ffffffff8020d400>] dump_stack+0x10/0x20
[ 187.927667] [<ffffffff80269949>] softlockup_tick+0x129/0x180
[ 187.933529] [<ffffffff80240c9d>] update_process_times+0x7d/0xa0
[ 187.939676] [<ffffffff8021c634>] smp_local_timer_interrupt+0x34/0x60
[ 187.946275] [<ffffffff8021c71a>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4a/0x70
[ 187.952731] [<ffffffff8020c7db>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6b/0x70
[ 187.958848] [<ffffffff881ca5e3>] :raid456:handle_stripe+0xe23/0xf50
so handle_stripe is taking too long; is this not consistent with the memory
theory?
(gdb) l *(handle_stripe+0xe23)
0x5613 is in handle_stripe (drivers/md/raid5.c:1853).
1848
1849 static void end_reshape(raid5_conf_t *conf);
1850
1851 static int page_is_zero(struct page *p)
1852 {
1853 char *a = page_address(p);
1854 return ((*(u32*)a) == 0 &&
1855 memcmp(a, a+4, STRIPE_SIZE-4)==0);
1856 }
that's a weird piece of code.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
