Peter, Paul,
The original message (below) didn't get any response.
Could you elaborate on the impact of this NBD issue? Based on your
description, having requests just sit on the queue would _seem_ to be
quite serious. Is this purely a bookkeeping issue or is there a more
subtle side-effect of
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 21:41 +0200, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:37:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Florin, can we please see /proc/meminfo as well?
> >
> > Also the result of `echo m > /proc/sysrq-trigger'
>
> Hi,
>
> It's been a while since this thread died out, but may
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:37:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Florin, can we please see /proc/meminfo as well?
>
> Also the result of `echo m > /proc/sysrq-trigger'
Hi,
It's been a while since this thread died out, but maybe I'm
having the same problem. Networking, large part of memory is
b
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:37:30AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Thanks! Did you ever find out what had happened to the test that hung
> last night?
Nope. I could not ssh into it and the machine was needed for some
windows duty before I got home ;) I'll try again this coming week-end
and let y
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 08:30 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > I'm far from the machine right now, so I will do some more tests
> > > > tonight, but right now, the ne
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 04:49:31PM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > I'm far from the machine right now, so I will do some more tests
> > > tonight, but right now, the new patchset is not good. What is the
> > > difference between r
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 05:30:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > I'm far from the machine right now, so I will do some more tests
> > tonight, but right now, the new patchset is not good. What is the
> > difference between reverting the patch you sent yesterday and your
> > current fifth patch
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 14:58 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:09:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > See
> >http://client.linux-nfs.org/Linux-2.6.x/2.6.21-rc7/
> >
> > I'm giving the first 5 patches of that series (i.e.
> > linux-2.6.21-001-cleanup_unstable_write.dif t
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 12:09:42PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> See
>http://client.linux-nfs.org/Linux-2.6.x/2.6.21-rc7/
>
> I'm giving the first 5 patches of that series (i.e.
> linux-2.6.21-001-cleanup_unstable_write.dif to
> linux-2.6.21-005-fix_nfsv4_resend.dif) an extra beating since t
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 10:50 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 11:17:28AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:12 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > Perhaps instead of looking at the number of bytes sent, the logic in the
> > > last hunk of this patch should ch
On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 11:17:28AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:12 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > Perhaps instead of looking at the number of bytes sent, the logic in the
> > last hunk of this patch should check which queue the request is sitting on.
>
> ??? It would be
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:52 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Do you have a copy of wireshark or ethereal on hand? If so, could you
take a look at whether or not any NFS traffic is going between the
client and serv
On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:12 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Perhaps instead of looking at the number of bytes sent, the logic in the
> last hunk of this patch should check which queue the request is sitting on.
??? It would be a bug for the request to be sitting on _any_ queue when
it enters xprt_tra
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:45:13PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:52 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> > It seems that my original problem report had a big mistake! There is
> > no hang, but at some point the write slows down to a trickle (from
> > 40,000 blocks/s to 22 blocks
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 20:52 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Do you have a copy of wireshark or ethereal on hand? If so, could you
> > take a look at whether or not any NFS traffic is going between the
> > client and server once the h
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Do you have a copy of wireshark or ethereal on hand? If so, could you
> take a look at whether or not any NFS traffic is going between the
> client and server once the hang happens?
I used the following command
tcpdump -w nfs-
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:19 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> > subproblems.
> >
> > The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
> >
> > Patch number
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 09:17 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 08:42 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> > > Could the port in CLOSE_WAIT state be the culprit? (FWIW
> > > the server has been up for 38 days and subjected
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 08:42 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> > Could the port in CLOSE_WAIT state be the culprit? (FWIW
> > the server has been up for 38 days and subjected to
> > this nfs test quite a bit without showing any stress).
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 08:42:25AM -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:15:31AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> The netstat outputs are stable (not changed in 5 minutes):
>
>http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7-nfs3/netstat-server :
>
> tcp1 0 hermes.iucha.org:nfsze
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 08:42 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:15:31AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > There is only one request on the 'pending' queue. That would usually
> > indicate that the connection to the server is down. Can you check using
> > "netstat -t" whether or
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:15:31AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> There is only one request on the 'pending' queue. That would usually
> indicate that the connection to the server is down. Can you check using
> "netstat -t" whether or not there is a connection in the 'ESTABLISHED'
> state to the s
On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 07:38 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:37:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Florin, can we please see /proc/meminfo as well?
>
>http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7-nfs2/meminfo
>
> > Also the result of `echo m > /proc/sysrq-trigger'
>
>http://iucha
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:37:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Florin, can we please see /proc/meminfo as well?
http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7-nfs2/meminfo
> Also the result of `echo m > /proc/sysrq-trigger'
http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7-nfs2/big-copy
This has 'echo m > /proc/sysrq-trigger',
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 23:07 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> When 'big-copy' hangs, if I switch to a different console and run
> 'lsof', '[u]mount', or use shell completion on a network mount then that
> process goes into D state. I cannot umount the network shares nor
> stop autofs. I cannot do a cl
Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was mainly interested in feedback from Peter, Florin and Ogawa-san to
> find out if this series fixes their problems. You were unfortunate
> enough to have been on earlier Ccs, so I didn't dare trim you off. :-)
Sorry. I'm trying to reproduce that,
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 21:19 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> subproblems.
>
> The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
>
> Patch number 2 ensures that we never release the PG_writeback flag until
> _after_
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Florin Iucha wrote:
> >
> > Already did. Traces from vanilla kernel at
> >http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7/big-copy
>
> Well, there's a pdflush in io_schedule_timeout/congestion_wait,
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:14:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Florin Iucha wrote:
> >
> > Already did. Traces from vanilla kernel at
> >http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7/big-copy
>
> Well, there's a pdflush in io_schedule_timeout/congestion_wait, and
> there's a nfsv4-scv
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Florin Iucha wrote:
>
> Already did. Traces from vanilla kernel at
>http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7/big-copy
Well, there's a pdflush in io_schedule_timeout/congestion_wait, and
there's a nfsv4-scv in svc_recv/nfs_callback_sv, and a lot of processes
either just in schedul
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:13:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:07:30 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florin Iucha) wrote:
> > > > The process traces are at:
> > > >
> > > >http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7-nfs1/gnome-session
> > > >http://iucha.net/nfs/21-rc7-nfs1/big-copy
>
>
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:07:30 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florin Iucha) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:54:45PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > The good news is that the Gnome session log-in progresses to the point
> > > where both top and bottom bars are painted (gray) and the bottom bar
> >
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:54:45PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > The good news is that the Gnome session log-in progresses to the point
> > where both top and bottom bars are painted (gray) and the bottom bar
> > is populated with icons (2.6.21-rc7 vanilla stops after displaying the
> > splash)
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 22:30 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:06:05PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > > I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> > > > subproblems.
> > > >
> > > > The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 11:06:05PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> > > subproblems.
> > >
> > > The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
> > >
> > > Patch number 2 ensures that we never release the PG_
On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 19:58 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:19:46 -0400 Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> > subproblems.
> >
> > The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease re
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:19:46 -0400 Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
> subproblems.
>
> The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
>
> Patch number 2 ensures that we never release the PG_writeba
I've split the issues introduced by the 2.6.21-rcX write code up into 4
subproblems.
The first patch is just a cleanup in order to ease review.
Patch number 2 ensures that we never release the PG_writeback flag until
_after_ we've either discarded the unstable request altogether, or put it
on the
38 matches
Mail list logo
