On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:08:44PM +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:10:39AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 01:39 +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I can't do the test 'till next week.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for your time,
> > > Gelma
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:10:39AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 01:39 +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I can't do the test 'till next week.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your time,
> > Gelma
>
> Have you ever gotten around to testing this?
well, I spent some time d
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 15:08 +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 10:10:39AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 01:39 +0100, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I can't do the test 'till next week.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for your time,
> > > Gelma
> >
>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 04:36:06PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I was thinking like a 100 line C program that I can reproduce here ;)
not soon, but I'll try to produce it.
> If you can even describe the steps it does: (eg. mmap file A, write(2) to
> it, truncate it, , should contain 1s but it c
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:56:07 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Note that the original rtorrent debian bug report was against 2.6.18
>
> I think that was 2.6.18+debian-added-dirty-page-tracking-patches.
i've seen it on a 2.6.18
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> It looks as if most code handling the dirty bits already uses the page
> lock?
Much does. But I did some debugging (when trying to figure out the VM
corruption), and certainly not all of it does. And when I looked at some
of the code-paths, I
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> However, a lot of the code isn't really amenable to it as it stands now.
> We very much tend to call it in critical sections, and you have to move
> them all out of the locks they are now.
It looks as if most code handling the dirty bits already uses
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Maybe we should require taking the page lock before the dirty bits are
> modified?
I think it's been suggested several times.
However, a lot of the code isn't really amenable to it as it stands now.
We very much tend to call it in critical sec
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And I haven't actually thought about it that much, so I could be full of
> crap. But I don't see anything that protects against it: we may hold the
> page lock, but since the code that marks things _dirty_ doesn't
> necessarily always hold it, that do
Andrea Gelmini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:03:43PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Anyway that leaves us with the question of why Andrea's database is getting
corrupted. Hopefully he can give us a minimal test-case.
yep, I can give you a complete image of my machine, or a root access.
replic
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:56:07 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > It'd odd that stories of pre-2.6.19 BerkeleyDB corruption are now coming
> > > out of the woodwork. It's the first
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 02:57:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I wouldn't discount a kernel bug, but it will be hard to track down
> unless you can find an earlier kernel that did not cause the corruptions
> and/or provide source for a minimal test case to reproduce.
see my others reply, please.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:07:18PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> But the patch that Andrea was pointing to was your last patch (The Fix),
> which stopped page_mkclean caller throwing out dirty bits. You probably
> didn't see that in the mail I cc'ed you on.
well, I pointed at that patch for reply, b
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:03:43PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Anyway that leaves us with the question of why Andrea's database is getting
> corrupted. Hopefully he can give us a minimal test-case.
yep, I can give you a complete image of my machine, or a root access.
replicate the problem it's not
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 10:12:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Anyway that leaves us with the question of why Andrea's database is getting
> > corrupted. Hopefully he can give us a minimal test-case.
>
> It'd odd that stories of pre-2.6.19 BerkeleyDB corruption are now coming
> out of the wood
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:56:07 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway that leaves us with the question of why Andrea's database is getting
corrupted. Hopefully he can give us a minimal test-case.
It'd odd that stories of pre-2.6.19 BerkeleyDB corruption
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:56:07 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:12:20 -0800
>
> > On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:03:43 +1100
> > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > That bug was introduced in 2.6.19, wit
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:12:20 -0800
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:03:43 +1100
> Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > That bug was introduced in 2.6.19, with the dirty page tracking patches.
> > >
> > > 2.6.18 and earlier used ->private_lock coverage
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:03:43 +1100
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That bug was introduced in 2.6.19, with the dirty page tracking patches.
> >
> > 2.6.18 and earlier used ->private_lock coverage in try_to_free_buffers() to
> > prevent it.
>
> Ohh, right you are, I was looking at 2.6.
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I think 2.6.18 may have a subtle variation on it.
In particular, I look back at the try_to_free_buffers() thing that I hated
so much, and it makes me wonder.. It used to do:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I think 2.6.18 may have a subtle variation on it.
>
> In particular, I look back at the try_to_free_buffers() thing that I hated
> so much, and it makes me wonder.. It used to do:
>
> spin_lock(
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yhat's when the bug was introduced -- 2.6.19. 2.6.18 does not have
this bug, so it cannot be years old.
Actually, I think 2.6.18 may have a subtle variation on it.
In particular, I look back at the try_to_free_buffers() thing th
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Yhat's when the bug was introduced -- 2.6.19. 2.6.18 does not have
> this bug, so it cannot be years old.
Actually, I think 2.6.18 may have a subtle variation on it.
In particular, I look back at the try_to_free_buffers() thing that I hated
so much,
Andrea Gelmini wrote:
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:55:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
This bug was only introduced in 2.6.19, due to a change that caused pte
no, Linus said that with 2.6.19 it's easier to trigger this bug...
Yhat's when the bug was introduced -- 2.6.19. 2.6.18 does not have
th
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 02:55:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> This bug was only introduced in 2.6.19, due to a change that caused pte
no, Linus said that with 2.6.19 it's easier to trigger this bug...
> So if your corruption is years old, then it must be something else.
> Maybe it is hidden by a
: 3bf8ba38f38d3647368e4edcf7d019f9f8d9184a
Author: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AuthorDate: Fri Dec 29 10:00:58 2006 -0800
Committer: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CommitDate: Fri Dec 29 10:00:58 2006 -0800
VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page
> Parent: 3bf8ba38f38d3647368e4edcf7d019f9f8d9184a
> Author: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> AuthorDate: Fri Dec 29 10:00:58 2006 -0800
> Committer: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CommitDate: Fri Dec 29 10:00:58 2006 -0800
>
> VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in
27 matches
Mail list logo
