On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch 29 September 2010, 00:00:00 schrieb Andrew Morton:
This is a workaround, I think? Do we know what the actual bug is?
From the comment it appears to be a regression?
Yes, it is a workaround.
For more details
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:47:36 +0200
Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Under high load the file system gets corrupted.
This patch fixes the issue.
Many thanks to Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl!
LKML-Reference: AANLkTi=PTp7YW_eYxtF-H2QSxgei3whWH59wU0C9oCkz () mail !
gmail ! com
On 2010-09-29 07:52, Chris Frey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch 29 September 2010, 00:00:00 schrieb Andrew Morton:
This is a workaround, I think? Do we know what the actual bug is?
From the comment it appears to be a regression?
Yes, it
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 08:10 +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
It looks like that if we need to restart the requeue, then
we use the initial position and not the current index. Does
this help?
diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
index 1bcd208..81ee063 100644
---
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch 29 September 2010, 00:00:00 schrieb Andrew Morton:
This is a workaround, I think? Do we know what the actual bug is?
From the comment it appears to be a regression?
Yes, it is a workaround.
For more details
On 2010-09-29 10:29, Chris Frey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:10:06AM +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
It looks like that if we need to restart the requeue, then
we use the initial position and not the current index. Does
this help?
diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:21:07PM +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
This seems to imply that the original commit pin pointed is not
the only issue we have in that code atm.
I think we need to find the real fix here, just disabling merging
is not a fix (it's just a nasty work-around for the real
Under high load the file system gets corrupted.
This patch fixes the issue.
Many thanks to Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl!
LKML-Reference: AANLkTi=PTp7YW_eYxtF-H2QSxgei3whWH59wU0C9oCkz () mail ! gmail
! com
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at
---
arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c |7
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 23:19, richard -rw- weinberger
richard.weinber...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
This changeset from 2007 indeed moved the update of req-sector.
However, in the new code, before or after applying your
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:21:07PM +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
This seems to imply that the original commit pin pointed is not
the only issue we have in that code atm.
I think we need to find the real fix here, just disabling merging
is not a fix (it's just a nasty work-around for the real
Hi,
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 21:52 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 19:07, Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl wrote:
See attached patch, and earlier message posted in March 2010 on uml user
list. We are out of maintainer...
Thanks for the patch!
| ---
Under high load the file system gets corrupted.
This patch fixes the issue.
Many thanks to Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl!
LKML-Reference: AANLkTi=PTp7YW_eYxtF-H2QSxgei3whWH59wU0C9oCkz () mail ! gmail
! com
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at
---
arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c |7
See attached patch, and earlier message posted in March 2010 on uml user
list. We are out of maintainer...
Best,
-Janjaap
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 18:16 +0200, richard -rw- weinberger wrote:
Hi Tejun!
Chris Frey ran into some problems with ext3 on UML.
See:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:10:06AM +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
It looks like that if we need to restart the requeue, then
we use the initial position and not the current index. Does
this help?
diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
index 1bcd208..81ee063 100644
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch 29 September 2010, 00:00:00 schrieb Andrew Morton:
This is a workaround, I think? Do we know what the actual bug is?
From the comment it appears to be a regression?
Yes, it is a workaround.
For more details
On 2010-09-29 10:29, Chris Frey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:10:06AM +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
It looks like that if we need to restart the requeue, then
we use the initial position and not the current index. Does
this help?
diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch 29 September 2010, 00:00:00 schrieb Andrew Morton:
This is a workaround, I think? Do we know what the actual bug is?
From the comment it appears to be a regression?
Yes, it is a workaround.
For more details
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 19:07, Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl wrote:
See attached patch, and earlier message posted in March 2010 on uml user
list. We are out of maintainer...
Thanks for the patch!
| --- a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
| +++ b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
| @@ -1223,7 +1227,7 @@ static
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 08:10 +0900, Jens Axboe wrote:
It looks like that if we need to restart the requeue, then
we use the initial position and not the current index. Does
this help?
diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/ubd_kern.c
index 1bcd208..81ee063 100644
---
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
ge...@linux-m68k.org wrote:
This changeset from 2007 indeed moved the update of req-sector.
However, in the new code, before or after applying your patch, there's no
update
of req-sector anymore. Everything is done in local variables.
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 22:12, Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 21:52 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 19:07, Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl wrote:
See attached patch, and earlier message posted in March 2010 on uml user
list. We are out of
On 2010-09-29 07:52, Chris Frey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:13:10AM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am Mittwoch 29 September 2010, 00:00:00 schrieb Andrew Morton:
This is a workaround, I think? Do we know what the actual bug is?
From the comment it appears to be a regression?
Yes, it
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:47:36 +0200
Richard Weinberger rich...@nod.at wrote:
Under high load the file system gets corrupted.
This patch fixes the issue.
Many thanks to Janjaap Bos janj...@bos.nl!
LKML-Reference: AANLkTi=PTp7YW_eYxtF-H2QSxgei3whWH59wU0C9oCkz () mail !
gmail ! com
Hi,
I'm seeing often messages like this one on my UML:
...
INFO: rcu_sched_state detected stall on CPU 0 (t=7348 jiffies)
...
The system often seems to be frozen.
When I press a button it wakes up immediately and continues to run.
Any ideas?
Config is attached.
--
Cheers,
//richard
24 matches
Mail list logo
