On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:39:34PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
Does this patch help?
It doesn't appear to help. It looks like pdflush is trying to
writeback inodes and is blocking waiting for a tlock in txLockAlloc
again, maybe this is holding everyone else from completing their
transactions?
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:03 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:39:34PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
Does this patch help?
It doesn't appear to help. It looks like pdflush is trying to
writeback inodes and is blocking waiting for a tlock in txLockAlloc
again, maybe this
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 08:20 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I also noticed that several of the static functions called by diAlloc do
show up in this latest stack trace, so I believe I was mistaken about
the cause of the earlier deadlock. I now think that the thread in
diAlloc was trying to grab
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:03:03AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 08:20 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I also noticed that several of the static functions called by diAlloc do
show up in this latest stack trace, so I believe I was mistaken about
the cause of the earlier
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:03:03AM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 08:20 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I also noticed that several of the static functions called by diAlloc do
show up in this latest stack trace, so I believe I was mistaken about
the cause of the earlier
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:38 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
Yeah, that seems to fix it for this particular case. I wonder if
we're just delaying the inevitable though? Would it make sense to
pre-allocate tlocks somehow before holding important semaphores?
Admittedly, my understanding of the txnmgr
Dave Kleikamp wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:38 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
Yeah, that seems to fix it for this particular case. I wonder if
we're just delaying the inevitable though? Would it make sense to
pre-allocate tlocks somehow before holding important semaphores?
Admittedly, my
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 12:30 -0600, Steven Pratt wrote:
Also, is it maybe time to increase the default number of locks? We had
similar problems on large systems in SLES9 testing and we still have to
run SPECSFS with TxLocks set to 65k.
Yeah, I've thought of this before and haven't done it.
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 12:30 -0600, Steven Pratt wrote:
Also, is it maybe time to increase the default number of locks? We had
similar problems on large systems in SLES9 testing and we still have to
run SPECSFS with TxLocks set to 65k.
How's this look?
= fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c 1.64 vs
