Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:00 +0530, gurudas pai wrote:
Hi,
While running olt kit on 2.6.24-rc1 over nfs , Oracle reported I/O
errors. I debugged little more and found that readv/writev are failing
with O_DIRECT on nfs ( netapp's filer).
I am able to re-produce same
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 13:00 +0530, gurudas pai wrote:
Hi,
While running olt kit on 2.6.24-rc1 over nfs , Oracle reported I/O
errors. I debugged little more and found that readv/writev are failing
with O_DIRECT on nfs ( netapp's filer).
I am able to re-produce same
gurudas pai wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, gurudas pai wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, gurudas pai wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from the backtrace, though
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hi,
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from the backtrace, though.
Is it possible you can strace to find the arguments for the
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hi,
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from the backtrace, though.
Is it possible you can strace to find the arguments for the
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, gurudas pai wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from the backtrace, though
gurudas pai wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, gurudas pai wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from
Joe Jin wrote:
Does a patch like this work? I don't have any test-cases, but it would be
good to have something like this tested and passed back with proper
explanations and sign-offs.
Yes it work find after apply the patch, thanks.
Joe
I tried with Badari's and Linus's patch using same
Joe Jin wrote:
Does a patch like this work? I don't have any test-cases, but it would be
good to have something like this tested and passed back with proper
explanations and sign-offs.
Yes it work find after apply the patch, thanks.
Joe
I tried with Badari's and Linus's patch using same
Joe Jin wrote:
I think we still want to run dio_cleanup() if do_direct_IO() failed?
Otherwise we can leak pages.
And there's nothing special about EFAULT or ENOMEM here: if do_direct_IO()
returns any error then that's it: we bale out, yes?
Yes, I think we'll out from here if get
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:04:00 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is the patch for check do_direct_IO() return val.
At do_direct_IO(), sometimes dio_get_page() will return -EFAULT/-ENOMEM,
according to orig source, it will go on left work. buf for
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:04:00 +0800 Joe Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the patch for check do_direct_IO() return val.
At do_direct_IO(), sometimes dio_get_page() will return -EFAULT/-ENOMEM,
according to orig source, it will go on left work. buf for dio_get_page()
Joe Jin wrote:
I think we still want to run dio_cleanup() if do_direct_IO() failed?
Otherwise we can leak pages.
And there's nothing special about EFAULT or ENOMEM here: if do_direct_IO()
returns any error then that's it: we bale out, yes?
Yes, I think we'll out from here if get
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:45:07 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something like this?
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c~a
+++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -105,13 +105,20 @@ static void free_huge_page(struct page *
static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(void)
{
- static int nid = 0;
+ static int
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:40:04 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007-07-12 22:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:45:07 +0800 Joe Jin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Something like this?
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c~a
+++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -105,13 +105,20 @@
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:40:04 +0800 Joe Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-07-12 22:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:45:07 +0800 Joe Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this?
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c~a
+++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -105,13 +105,20 @@ static
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:45:07 +0800 Joe Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this?
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c~a
+++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -105,13 +105,20 @@ static void free_huge_page(struct page *
static int alloc_fresh_huge_page(void)
{
- static int nid = 0;
+ static int
18 matches
Mail list logo
