On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:09:33AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/28/2018 12:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I made a mistake on previous patch.
> > Could you test this patches?
>
> Thanks! Looking good so far! No errors whatsoever with the new patch. I will
> let my test workload running for
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 08:09:33AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/28/2018 12:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I made a mistake on previous patch.
> > Could you test this patches?
>
> Thanks! Looking good so far! No errors whatsoever with the new patch. I will
> let my test workload running for
On 07/28/2018 12:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
I made a mistake on previous patch.
Could you test this patches?
Thanks! Looking good so far! No errors whatsoever with the new patch. I
will let my test workload running for while to be sure, but I think we
are good.
--
Kind regards,
Tino Lehnig
On 07/28/2018 12:58 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
I made a mistake on previous patch.
Could you test this patches?
Thanks! Looking good so far! No errors whatsoever with the new patch. I
will let my test workload running for while to be sure, but I think we
are good.
--
Kind regards,
Tino Lehnig
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:13:57PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 02:05 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > And bad page is always with writeback enable?
> >
> > writeback enable means "echo "some dev" > /sys/block/zram0/backing_dev,
> > not just enable CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK.
>
> Yes, the bug
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:13:57PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 02:05 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > And bad page is always with writeback enable?
> >
> > writeback enable means "echo "some dev" > /sys/block/zram0/backing_dev,
> > not just enable CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK.
>
> Yes, the bug
On 07/27/2018 02:05 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
And bad page is always with writeback enable?
writeback enable means "echo "some dev" > /sys/block/zram0/backing_dev,
not just enable CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK.
Yes, the bug only appears when backing_dev is set.
--
Kind regards,
Tino Lehnig
On 07/27/2018 02:05 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
And bad page is always with writeback enable?
writeback enable means "echo "some dev" > /sys/block/zram0/backing_dev,
not just enable CONFIG_ZRAM_WRITEBACK.
Yes, the bug only appears when backing_dev is set.
--
Kind regards,
Tino Lehnig
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 01:00:01PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 11:14 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I tried to reproduce with KVM but was not successful and I don't have
> > real mahcine to reproduce it. I am asking one device for it.
> >
> > Anyway, I want to try this patch.
> > Could
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 01:00:01PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 11:14 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I tried to reproduce with KVM but was not successful and I don't have
> > real mahcine to reproduce it. I am asking one device for it.
> >
> > Anyway, I want to try this patch.
> > Could
On 07/27/2018 11:14 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
I tried to reproduce with KVM but was not successful and I don't have
real mahcine to reproduce it. I am asking one device for it.
Anyway, I want to try this patch.
Could you apply attached two patches?
Thanks, I applied the patches on 4.18-rc6, but
On 07/27/2018 11:14 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
I tried to reproduce with KVM but was not successful and I don't have
real mahcine to reproduce it. I am asking one device for it.
Anyway, I want to try this patch.
Could you apply attached two patches?
Thanks, I applied the patches on 4.18-rc6, but
I tried to reproduce with KVM but was not successful and I don't have
real mahcine to reproduce it. I am asking one device for it.
Anyway, I want to try this patch.
Could you apply attached two patches?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 12:30 PM,
I tried to reproduce with KVM but was not successful and I don't have
real mahcine to reproduce it. I am asking one device for it.
Anyway, I want to try this patch.
Could you apply attached two patches?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:35:15PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 12:30 PM,
On 07/26/2018 12:30 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Huh, you see it without writeback? It's weird. Without writeback feature,
zram operaion is always synchronous on memory compression/decompression
so you shouldn't see below io_schedule logic which happens only for
asynchronous IO operation.
Could you
On 07/26/2018 12:30 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
Huh, you see it without writeback? It's weird. Without writeback feature,
zram operaion is always synchronous on memory compression/decompression
so you shouldn't see below io_schedule logic which happens only for
asynchronous IO operation.
Could you
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 08:10 AM, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > A thing I could imagine is
> > > [0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
> > > It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
> >
> > Thanks, I will
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 08:10 AM, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > A thing I could imagine is
> > > [0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
> > > It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
> >
> > Thanks, I will
On 07/26/2018 08:10 AM, Tino Lehnig wrote:
A thing I could imagine is
[0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
Thanks, I will check that.
So I get the same behavior as in v4.15-rc1 after this commit. All prior
On 07/26/2018 08:10 AM, Tino Lehnig wrote:
A thing I could imagine is
[0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
Thanks, I will check that.
So I get the same behavior as in v4.15-rc1 after this commit. All prior
On 07/26/2018 08:21 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
That means you could reproduce it without writeback feature?
If so, it would be more reasoanble to check [0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for
swapin of synchronous device]
No, the bug only occurs with a backing device. The writeback feature is
enabled
On 07/26/2018 08:21 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
That means you could reproduce it without writeback feature?
If so, it would be more reasoanble to check [0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for
swapin of synchronous device]
No, the bug only occurs with a backing device. The writeback feature is
enabled
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/26/2018 04:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > A thing I could imagine is
> > [0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
> > It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
>
> Thanks, I will
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:10:41AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/26/2018 04:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > A thing I could imagine is
> > [0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
> > It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
>
> Thanks, I will
Hi,
On 07/26/2018 04:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
A thing I could imagine is
[0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
Thanks, I will check that.
My operating system is a minimal install of Debian 9. I took the
Hi,
On 07/26/2018 04:03 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
A thing I could imagine is
[0bcac06f27d75, skip swapcache for swapin of synchronous device]
It was merged into v4.15. Could you check it by bisecting?
Thanks, I will check that.
My operating system is a minimal install of Debian 9. I took the
Hi Tino,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 05:12:13PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/25/2018 03:21 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > It would be much helpful if you could check more versions with git-bisect.
>
> I started bisecting today, but my results are not conclusive yet. It is
> certain that
Hi Tino,
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 05:12:13PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/25/2018 03:21 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > It would be much helpful if you could check more versions with git-bisect.
>
> I started bisecting today, but my results are not conclusive yet. It is
> certain that
Hi,
On 07/25/2018 03:21 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
It would be much helpful if you could check more versions with git-bisect.
I started bisecting today, but my results are not conclusive yet. It is
certain that the problem started with 4.15 though. I have not
encountered the bug message in
Hi,
On 07/25/2018 03:21 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
It would be much helpful if you could check more versions with git-bisect.
I started bisecting today, but my results are not conclusive yet. It is
certain that the problem started with 4.15 though. I have not
encountered the bug message in
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug with 4.17.9
> and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
>
> The bug does not appear on
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug with 4.17.9
> and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
>
> The bug does not appear on
On (07/24/18 19:51), Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> Also note that this is in the allocation path; this flag isn't checked
> at free. But it is cleared on free, so someone's stomping on page->flags
> after they're freed. I suggest enabling more debugging code.
Would be lovely if Tino could bisect
On (07/24/18 19:51), Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> Also note that this is in the allocation path; this flag isn't checked
> at free. But it is cleared on free, so someone's stomping on page->flags
> after they're freed. I suggest enabling more debugging code.
Would be lovely if Tino could bisect
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:55:25PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:51:06AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:35:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > There is NOTHING in a union with _refcount.
> >
> > Confusing. Matthew, what am I missing?
> >
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:55:25PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:51:06AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:35:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > There is NOTHING in a union with _refcount.
> >
> > Confusing. Matthew, what am I missing?
> >
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:51:06AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:35:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > There is NOTHING in a union with _refcount.
>
> Confusing. Matthew, what am I missing?
>
> Before:
>
> counters consumes 8 bytes
> units and _refcount consumes each
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:51:06AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:35:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > There is NOTHING in a union with _refcount.
>
> Confusing. Matthew, what am I missing?
>
> Before:
>
> counters consumes 8 bytes
> units and _refcount consumes each
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [ 804.485321] BUG: Bad page state in process qemu-system-x86 pfn:1c4b08e
> > [ 804.485403] page:e809312c2380 count:0 mapcount:0
> > mapping: index:0x1
> > [ 804.485483] flags: 0x17fffc8(uptodate)
> > [
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [ 804.485321] BUG: Bad page state in process qemu-system-x86 pfn:1c4b08e
> > [ 804.485403] page:e809312c2380 count:0 mapcount:0
> > mapping: index:0x1
> > [ 804.485483] flags: 0x17fffc8(uptodate)
> > [
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:35:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:16:57AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Tino,
> > > >
> > > > On
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 07:35:32PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:16:57AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Tino,
> > > >
> > > > On
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:16:57AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Tino,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:16:57AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Tino,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Tino,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:55:02PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi Tino,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Tino,
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> > somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:32:50AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Tino,
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> > somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug
Hi Tino,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug with 4.17.9
> and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
>
> The bug does not
Hi Tino,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:30:34AM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline kernel,
> somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug with 4.17.9
> and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
>
> The bug does not
Hi,
The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline
kernel, somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug
with 4.17.9 and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
The bug does not appear on 4.14.57. I can test more versions if it helps.
On 07/24/2018 03:03 AM,
Hi,
The first build I used was from the master branch of the mainline
kernel, somewhere between rc5 and rc6. I have just reproduced the bug
with 4.17.9 and 4.18-rc6. Kernel messages below.
The bug does not appear on 4.14.57. I can test more versions if it helps.
On 07/24/2018 03:03 AM,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:53:30AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (07/24/18 10:03), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > after enabling the writeback feature in zram, I encountered the kernel bug
> > > below with heavy
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:53:30AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (07/24/18 10:03), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > after enabling the writeback feature in zram, I encountered the kernel bug
> > > below with heavy
On (07/24/18 10:03), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > after enabling the writeback feature in zram, I encountered the kernel bug
> > below with heavy swap utilization. There is one specific workload that
> > triggers the bug
On (07/24/18 10:03), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > after enabling the writeback feature in zram, I encountered the kernel bug
> > below with heavy swap utilization. There is one specific workload that
> > triggers the bug
Hi Tino,
Thanks for the report.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> after enabling the writeback feature in zram, I encountered the kernel bug
> below with heavy swap utilization. There is one specific workload that
> triggers the bug reliably and that is
Hi Tino,
Thanks for the report.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 02:29:32PM +0200, Tino Lehnig wrote:
> Hello,
>
> after enabling the writeback feature in zram, I encountered the kernel bug
> below with heavy swap utilization. There is one specific workload that
> triggers the bug reliably and that is
58 matches
Mail list logo
