On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
On 2007.12.20 08:25:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
bail out if the page is dirty.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Björn Steinbrink wrote:
On 2007.12.20 08:25:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
bail out if the page is dirty.
On Friday 21 December 2007 06:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
> > As I wrote in my previous email, this solution works but hides the
> > fact that the page really *has* dirty data in it and *is* pinned in
> > memory until the commit code gets to writing it. So in
On 2007.12.20 08:25:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
> >
> > OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
> >
> > In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
> > bail out if the page is dirty.
> >
> > Then in
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> As I wrote in my previous email, this solution works but hides the
> fact that the page really *has* dirty data in it and *is* pinned in memory
> until the commit code gets to writing it. So in theory it could disturb
> the writeout logic by having more
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
> >
> > OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
> >
> > In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
> > bail out if the page is dirty.
> >
> > Then in 3e67c0987d7567ad41164a153dca9a43b11d, Andrew fixed
> >
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
>
> OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
>
> In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
> bail out if the page is dirty.
>
> Then in 3e67c0987d7567ad41164a153dca9a43b11d, Andrew fixed
> truncate_complete_page,
> > On 2007.12.19 09:44:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to
> > > > data=ordered
> > > > (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
> >
> On 2007.12.19 09:44:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to
> > > data=ordered
> > > (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
> >
> > Ok, do we
On 2007.12.19 09:44:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >
> > I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to data=ordered
> > (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
>
> Ok, do we actually have any ext3
On 2007.12.19 09:44:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to data=ordered
(AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
Ok, do we actually have any ext3 expert
On 2007.12.19 09:44:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to
data=ordered
(AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
Ok, do we actually have any ext3
On 2007.12.19 09:44:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to
data=ordered
(AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
Ok, do we actually have
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
bail out if the page is dirty.
Then in 3e67c0987d7567ad41164a153dca9a43b11d, Andrew fixed
truncate_complete_page, because it
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
bail out if the page is dirty.
Then in 3e67c0987d7567ad41164a153dca9a43b11d, Andrew fixed
truncate_complete_page,
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
As I wrote in my previous email, this solution works but hides the
fact that the page really *has* dirty data in it and *is* pinned in memory
until the commit code gets to writing it. So in theory it could disturb
the writeout logic by having more
On 2007.12.20 08:25:56 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Bj?rn Steinbrink wrote:
OK, so I looked for PG_dirty anyway.
In 46d2277c796f9f4937bfa668c40b2e3f43e93dd0 you made try_to_free_buffers
bail out if the page is dirty.
Then in
On Friday 21 December 2007 06:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Jan Kara wrote:
As I wrote in my previous email, this solution works but hides the
fact that the page really *has* dirty data in it and *is* pinned in
memory until the commit code gets to writing it. So in theory
On Thursday 20 December 2007 12:05, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> > > I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to
> > > data=ordered (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this
> > > problem.
> >
> > Ok, do we actually have any ext3
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> >
> > I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to data=ordered
> > (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
>
> Ok, do we actually have any ext3 expert following this? I have no idea
> about what the
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
> I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to data=ordered
> (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
Ok, do we actually have any ext3 expert following this? I have no idea
about what the journalling code
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to data=ordered
(AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
Ok, do we actually have any ext3 expert following this? I have no idea
about what the journalling code
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to data=ordered
(AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this problem.
Ok, do we actually have any ext3 expert following this? I have no idea
about what the journalling
On Thursday 20 December 2007 12:05, Jan Kara wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
I'll confirm this tomorrow but it seems that even switching to
data=ordered (AFAIK default o ext3) is indeed enough to cure this
problem.
Ok, do we actually have any ext3 expert
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Which filesystem, which mount options
- ext3 on RAID1 (MD): / - rootflags=data=journal
It wouldn't surprise me if this is specific to data=journal: that
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>> Which filesystem, which mount options
> > >>
> > >> - ext3 on RAID1 (MD): / - rootflags=data=journal
> > >
> > > It wouldn't surprise me if this is specific to data=journal: that
> > >
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Which filesystem, which mount options
- ext3 on RAID1 (MD): / - rootflags=data=journal
It wouldn't surprise me if this is specific to data=journal: that
journalling mode is pretty complex
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which filesystem, which mount options
- ext3 on RAID1 (MD): / - rootflags=data=journal
It wouldn't surprise me if this is specific to data=journal: that
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>> Which filesystem, which mount options
> >>
> >> - ext3 on RAID1 (MD): / - rootflags=data=journal
> >
> > It wouldn't surprise me if this is specific to data=journal: that
> > journalling mode is pretty
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007,
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #39 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-16 01:58 ---
So:
- 2.6.20-rc1: OK
- 2.6.20-rc1-git8 with fba2591bf4e418b6c3f9f8794c9dd8fe40ae7bd9 reverted: OK
- 2.6.20-rc1-git8:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #33 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-15 14:19
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:46:36 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which filesystem, which mount options
- ext3 on RAID1 (MD): / - rootflags=data=journal
It wouldn't surprise me if this is specific to data=journal: that
journalling mode is pretty complex wrt
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #33 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-15 14:19
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #39 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-16 01:58 ---
So:
- 2.6.20-rc1: OK
- 2.6.20-rc1-git8 with fba2591bf4e418b6c3f9f8794c9dd8fe40ae7bd9 reverted: OK
- 2.6.20-rc1-git8:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:33:20 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
> >
> >
> > --- Comment #33 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-15 14:19 ---
> > Krzysztof, I'd
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #33 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-15 14:19 ---
Krzysztof, I'd hate point you to a hard path (at least time consuming), but
you've done a lot of digging by now anyway. How
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at this problem? I feel little ignored and
in my situation this is a critical regression.
I was
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at this problem? I feel little ignored and
in my situation this is a critical regression.
I was
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #33 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-15 14:19 ---
Krzysztof, I'd hate point you to a hard path (at least time consuming), but
you've done a lot of digging by now anyway. How
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:08:52 +0100 (CET) Krzysztof Oledzki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #33 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-15 14:19 ---
Krzysztof, I'd hate point you to
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at this problem? I feel little ignored and
in my situation this is a critical regression.
I was hoping to get around to it today, but I guess tomorrow
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>
> BTW: Could someone please look at this problem? I feel little ignored and
> in my situation this is a critical regression.
I was hoping to get around to it today, but I guess tomorrow will have
to do :-/
So, its ext3, dirty some
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Thomas Osterried wrote:
On the machine which has troubles, the bug occured within about 10 days
During these days, the amount of dirty pages increased, up to 400MB.
I have testet kernel 2.6.19, 2.6.20, 2.6.22.1 and 2.6.22.10 (with our config),
and even linux-2.6.20 from
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Thomas Osterried wrote:
On the machine which has troubles, the bug occured within about 10 days
During these days, the amount of dirty pages increased, up to 400MB.
I have testet kernel 2.6.19, 2.6.20, 2.6.22.1 and 2.6.22.10 (with our config),
and even linux-2.6.20 from
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at this problem? I feel little ignored and
in my situation this is a critical regression.
I was hoping to get around to it today, but I guess tomorrow will have
to do :-/
So, its ext3, dirty some
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 16:17 +0100, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
BTW: Could someone please look at this problem? I feel little ignored and
in my situation this is a critical regression.
I was hoping to get around to it today, but I guess tomorrow
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #20 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-05 13:37 ---
Please monitor the "Dirty:"
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
--- Comment #20 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-05 13:37 ---
Please monitor the Dirty:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|Other
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9182
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|Other
56 matches
Mail list logo