My raid check also ran through cleanly, so feel free to add my Tested-By:
Cheers
David
Quoting Dominik Brodowski :
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:01:28PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07 2017,
My raid check also ran through cleanly, so feel free to add my Tested-By:
Cheers
David
Quoting Dominik Brodowski :
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:01:28PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
>
>
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:01:28PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> >
> > > Neil, Shaohua,
> > >
> > > following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> > > on
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:01:28PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> >
> > > Neil, Shaohua,
> > >
> > > following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> > > on
I will apply this to my home server this evening (BST) and set off a
check. Will have results tomorrow.
Thanks for the fix!
David
Quoting NeilBrown :
On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
Neil, Shaohua,
following up on David R's bug message: I have observed
I will apply this to my home server this evening (BST) and set off a
check. Will have results tomorrow.
Thanks for the fix!
David
Quoting NeilBrown :
On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
Neil, Shaohua,
following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
on
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:01:28PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
>
> > Neil, Shaohua,
> >
> > following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> > on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
> > metal
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 05:01:28PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
>
> > Neil, Shaohua,
> >
> > following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> > on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
> > metal
Shaouhua,
( really CC'ing Tejun now )
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:51:03PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:20:25PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > Neil, Shaohua,
> >
> > following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> > on v4.12.[345] and
Shaouhua,
( really CC'ing Tejun now )
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:51:03PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:20:25PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > Neil, Shaohua,
> >
> > following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> > on v4.12.[345] and
On Tue, Aug 08 2017, David R wrote:
> Quoting Shaohua Li :
>
>> Spent some time to check this one, unfortunately I can't find how that patch
>> makes rcu stall. the percpu part looks good to me too. Can you
>> double check if
>> reverting 4ad23a976413aa57 makes the issue go
On Tue, Aug 08 2017, David R wrote:
> Quoting Shaohua Li :
>
>> Spent some time to check this one, unfortunately I can't find how that patch
>> makes rcu stall. the percpu part looks good to me too. Can you
>> double check if
>> reverting 4ad23a976413aa57 makes the issue go away? When the rcu
Ignore me. The increment and decrement of sync_checkers should protect
switch_to_percpu(). Sigh.
Quoting David R :
Quoting Shaohua Li :
Spent some time to check this one, unfortunately I can't find how that patch
makes rcu stall. the percpu part
Ignore me. The increment and decrement of sync_checkers should protect
switch_to_percpu(). Sigh.
Quoting David R :
Quoting Shaohua Li :
Spent some time to check this one, unfortunately I can't find how that patch
makes rcu stall. the percpu part looks good to me too. Can you
double
On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Neil, Shaohua,
>
> following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
> metal partitions, /dev/sdaX and /dev/sdbY linked together). In case it
>
On Mon, Aug 07 2017, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Neil, Shaohua,
>
> following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
> metal partitions, /dev/sdaX and /dev/sdbY linked together). In case it
>
Quoting Shaohua Li :
Spent some time to check this one, unfortunately I can't find how that patch
makes rcu stall. the percpu part looks good to me too. Can you
double check if
reverting 4ad23a976413aa57 makes the issue go away? When the rcu
stall happens,
what the
Quoting Shaohua Li :
Spent some time to check this one, unfortunately I can't find how that patch
makes rcu stall. the percpu part looks good to me too. Can you
double check if
reverting 4ad23a976413aa57 makes the issue go away? When the rcu
stall happens,
what the
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:20:25PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Neil, Shaohua,
>
> following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
> metal partitions, /dev/sdaX and /dev/sdbY linked together).
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:20:25PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Neil, Shaohua,
>
> following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
> on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
> metal partitions, /dev/sdaX and /dev/sdbY linked together).
Neil, Shaohua,
following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
metal partitions, /dev/sdaX and /dev/sdbY linked together). In case it
matters: Further upwards are cryptsetup, a DM volume group, then
Neil, Shaohua,
following up on David R's bug message: I have observed something similar
on v4.12.[345] and v4.13-rc4, but not on v4.11. This is a RAID1 (on bare
metal partitions, /dev/sdaX and /dev/sdbY linked together). In case it
matters: Further upwards are cryptsetup, a DM volume group, then
22 matches
Mail list logo