On 2011-08-18, at 7:50 AM, "Roger Spellman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andreas, > Thanks for you reply. It was very helpful. See my responses, below. > >>> I am in the process of porting Lustre client 1.8.4 to a recent > kernel, >> 2.6.38.8. >> >> That is somewhat an unfortunate starting point, since 1.8.6 clients at >> least work with 2.6.32 kernels. > > I understand. I started this project before 1.8.6 came out, and I > wanted to stick with 1.8.4, in case any problems came up with 1.8.6. As > soon as I am done with 1.8.4, I will port my patch to 1.8.6. > >> It's difficult to make any kind of assessment without knowing what > changes >> you have made to the client. It would be useful if you would submit a >> series of patches so that we can take a look at your patches. > > My plan was to get it working, then post the patch to anyone who wanted > it. That should be pretty soon. I'm assuming that other people are > wanting to run Lustre with recent kernels. > >> No, the Linux stack traces are terrible, they just print anything that >> looks like the address of a kernel or module function. That includes >> function addresses that are passed as function parameters, such as >> callback functions. It must have hit an interrupt at one point, but I >> think it is just random garbage on the stack. > > Too bad. I compiled the Kernel with Frame Pointers, so I hoped that the > kernel could unwind the stack properly. That helps, but AFAIK it isn't 100% correct even then. > Now that I know to ignore the Stack Trace, I can instrument the code to > track down this problem. I don't think you need to ignore the stack, just treat it with caution and look for a valid callpath through the listed functions. Cheers, Andreas _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
