[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Kernel 2.6.9 Multiple Page Allocation Failures

To: Lukas Hejtmanek <xhejtman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.9 Multiple Page Allocation Failures
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 11:15:18 +1100
Cc: Stefan Schmidt <zaphodb@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, marcelo.tosatti@xxxxxxxxxxxx, piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20041207111736.GA10872@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20041116170527.GA3525@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041121014350.GJ4999@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20041121024226.GK4999@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20041202195422.GA20771@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041202122546.59ff814f.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20041202210348.GD20771@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041202223146.GA31508@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20041202145610.49e27b49.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20041203061835.GF1228@frodo> <20041207111736.GA10872@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 12:17:36PM +0100, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 05:18:35PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Does this patch improve things for your workload, Stefan?
> This change leads to:
> Filesystem "sda1": XFS internal error xfs_da_do_buf(1) at line 2176 of file 
> fs/x
> fs/xfs_da_btree.c.  Caller 0xc0200641
>  [<c02003da>] xfs_da_do_buf+0x72a/0x8df

Hmmm, thats not healthy -- the patch might be making some other
lurking problem more likely to hit; what workload are you using
to hit this?  (is it reproducible?)  I haven't come across this
in the testing I've done so far, so I'm keen to try your case.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>