On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:52 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestion, it has fixed the inotify problem. But where
> to put the fix is turning into a bit of a mess. Some callers like
> drivers/md/dm.c:682 call idr_get_new_above as if it will return >=
> starting_id. The comment
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:03 -0400, Jim Houston wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I'm answering this from my home email. I have not heard from my
> co-workers in Florida yet, and I imagine that they are busy cleaning up
> after hurricane Katrina and waiting for the power to come back on.
>
> It looks
Hi Everyone,
I'm answering this from my home email. I have not heard from my
co-workers in Florida yet, and I imagine that they are busy cleaning up
after hurricane Katrina and waiting for the power to come back on.
It looks like we have an "off by one" problem with idr_get_new_above()
which may
Hi Everyone,
I'm answering this from my home email. I have not heard from my
co-workers in Florida yet, and I imagine that they are busy cleaning up
after hurricane Katrina and waiting for the power to come back on.
It looks like we have an off by one problem with idr_get_new_above()
which may
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:03 -0400, Jim Houston wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I'm answering this from my home email. I have not heard from my
co-workers in Florida yet, and I imagine that they are busy cleaning up
after hurricane Katrina and waiting for the power to come back on.
It looks like we
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:52 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
Thanks for your suggestion, it has fixed the inotify problem. But where
to put the fix is turning into a bit of a mess. Some callers like
drivers/md/dm.c:682 call idr_get_new_above as if it will return =
starting_id. The comment says
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:10 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
> That IS strange. 1024 is on a "level" boundry, but then next level is
> 2**15, not 2**11. I will take a look.
Remember that the level is never filled, so maybe the smallest level
just gets an offset or something? Well, you're the
John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
> I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
> problem usage.
Good plan, I guess. Do you think that's easy?
> To this end, from the log it appears that you _might_ be
> moving between 0, 1 and 2 entries
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
>
> > I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
> > problem usage.
>
> Good plan, I guess. Do you think that's easy?
>
> > To this end, from the log
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
> Robert Love wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
> >>
> ~
> >>>dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:26 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1022 from
>
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:26 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1022 from inotify fd
4
dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Warning: IMAP(gilly): inotify_add_watch
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
> > with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
> > post
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:13 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
>
> > I really don't want 2.6.13 to go out with this bug or the compromise. If
> > we use 0, we will have a lot of wd re-use. Which will cause "strange"
> > problems in inotify using
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:13 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> I really don't want 2.6.13 to go out with this bug or the compromise. If
> we use 0, we will have a lot of wd re-use. Which will cause "strange"
> problems in inotify using applications that cleanup upon receipt of an
> IN_IGNORE event.
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:13 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:06 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> > > it fails on 2.6.13-rc6 as soon as the device is full and doesn't hold
> > > any more directories.
>
> Obviously this wasn't true, I was hitting the 8192 watches limit and
>
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:06 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> > it fails on 2.6.13-rc6 as soon as the device is full and doesn't hold
> > any more directories.
Obviously this wasn't true, I was hitting the 8192 watches limit and
misinterpreted the error message. I just tested up to 10 watches
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
>
> > I get that message a lot. I know I have said this before (and was wrong)
> > but I think the idr layer is busted.
>
> This time I think I agree with you. ;-)
>
> Let's just
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
>
> > Let's just pass zero for the "above" parameter in idr_get_new_above(),
> > which is I believe the behavior of the other interface, and see if the
> > 1024-multiple problem goes
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> Let's just pass zero for the "above" parameter in idr_get_new_above(),
> which is I believe the behavior of the other interface, and see if the
> 1024-multiple problem goes away. We definitely did not have that
> before.
Will we then need
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 15:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
>
> > On 2.6.13-rc7 the test program fails. It always fails when a wd == 1024.
> > If I skip inotify_rm_watch when wd == 1024, it will fail at wd == 2048.
> > It seems the idr layer
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> On 2.6.13-rc7 the test program fails. It always fails when a wd == 1024.
> If I skip inotify_rm_watch when wd == 1024, it will fail at wd == 2048.
> It seems the idr layer has an aversion to multiples of 1024.
>
> When I run your test
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
> I get that message a lot. I know I have said this before (and was wrong)
> but I think the idr layer is busted.
This time I think I agree with you. ;-)
Let's just pass zero for the "above" parameter in idr_get_new_above(),
which is I
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:18 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
> > with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
> > post
> > here to LKML since his opinion is that this to be a kernel
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
> with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
> post
> here to LKML since his opinion is that this to be a kernel bug.
>
Hi,
> I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
> with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
> post
> here to LKML since his opinion is that this to be a kernel bug.
Allow me to jump in at this point. The small tool below
Hi,
On 22/08/2005 9:10 p.m., John McCutchan wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 23:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Reuben Farrelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 19/08/2005 11:37 a.m., Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.13-rc6/2.6.13-rc6-mm1/
Hi,
On 22/08/2005 9:10 p.m., John McCutchan wrote:
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 23:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Reuben Farrelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 19/08/2005 11:37 a.m., Andrew Morton wrote:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.13-rc6/2.6.13-rc6-mm1/
-
Hi,
I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
post
here to LKML since his opinion is that this to be a kernel bug.
Allow me to jump in at this point. The small tool below triggers
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Hi,
I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
post
here to LKML since his opinion is that this to be a kernel bug.
The
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 14:18 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
Hi,
I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
post
here to LKML since his opinion is that this to be a kernel bug.
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
I get that message a lot. I know I have said this before (and was wrong)
but I think the idr layer is busted.
This time I think I agree with you. ;-)
Let's just pass zero for the above parameter in idr_get_new_above(),
which is I
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On 2.6.13-rc7 the test program fails. It always fails when a wd == 1024.
If I skip inotify_rm_watch when wd == 1024, it will fail at wd == 2048.
It seems the idr layer has an aversion to multiples of 1024.
When I run your test program
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
Let's just pass zero for the above parameter in idr_get_new_above(),
which is I believe the behavior of the other interface, and see if the
1024-multiple problem goes away. We definitely did not have that
before.
Will we then need to
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 15:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On 2.6.13-rc7 the test program fails. It always fails when a wd == 1024.
If I skip inotify_rm_watch when wd == 1024, it will fail at wd == 2048.
It seems the idr layer has an
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
Let's just pass zero for the above parameter in idr_get_new_above(),
which is I believe the behavior of the other interface, and see if the
1024-multiple problem goes away. We
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:47 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:40 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
I get that message a lot. I know I have said this before (and was wrong)
but I think the idr layer is busted.
This time I think I agree with you. ;-)
Let's just pass zero
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:06 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
it fails on 2.6.13-rc6 as soon as the device is full and doesn't hold
any more directories.
Obviously this wasn't true, I was hitting the 8192 watches limit and
misinterpreted the error message. I just tested up to 10 watches
with
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:13 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:06 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
it fails on 2.6.13-rc6 as soon as the device is full and doesn't hold
any more directories.
Obviously this wasn't true, I was hitting the 8192 watches limit and
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:13 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
I really don't want 2.6.13 to go out with this bug or the compromise. If
we use 0, we will have a lot of wd re-use. Which will cause strange
problems in inotify using applications that cleanup upon receipt of an
IN_IGNORE event.
What
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 10:13 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
I really don't want 2.6.13 to go out with this bug or the compromise. If
we use 0, we will have a lot of wd re-use. Which will cause strange
problems in inotify using
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
Hi,
I have also observed another problem with inotify with dovecot - so I spoke
with Johannes Berg who wrote the inotify code in dovecot. He suggested I
post
here to
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:26 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1022 from inotify fd
4
dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Warning: IMAP(gilly): inotify_add_watch
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:26 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1022 from
inotify fd 4
dovecot:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
problem usage.
Good plan, I guess. Do you think that's easy?
To this end, from the log it appears
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
problem usage.
Good plan, I guess. Do you think that's easy?
To this end, from the log it appears that you _might_ be
moving between 0, 1 and 2 entries
John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
Robert Love wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 16:10 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
That IS strange. 1024 is on a level boundry, but then next level is
2**15, not 2**11. I will take a look.
Remember that the level is never filled, so maybe the smallest level
just gets an offset or something? Well, you're the expert
48 matches
Mail list logo
