[Top] [All Lists]

Re: out of the tree compilation and 4KSTACKS

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: out of the tree compilation and 4KSTACKS
From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 05:42:02 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <477395.f3b7fdadc14ce50b8c44d1f319df1ab6.IBX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050531074820.GM8770@xxxxxxxxxxx> <462608.672469a40d5f4a17f7b1f43a4517535a.ANY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050531215402.GE23991@xxxxxxxxxxx> <477395.f3b7fdadc14ce50b8c44d1f319df1ab6.IBX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:25:48PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:54:02PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Hm, any pointers to "how"? ;)
>   make -C <path-to-kernel> M=`pwd`
> sort of thing.
> linux/Documentation/kbuild/modules.txt will probably explain it better
> than I can.
> > Sure, that's clear. What I mean is: If you turn on xfs in RHEL4's
> > kernel is it considered safe with 4KSTACKS?
> It is on already on RHEL isn't it?

No. That's the whole point of this exercise ;)

> As to whether it's safe it depends who you ask.
> Various people from Red Hat insist that 4K stacks are desirable
> because they see order-1 allocations failing sometimes which make
> sense, however, x86-64 still uses 8K stacks and nobody is pushing hard
> for 4K stacks there.
> > If not, that would make the whole point of building the kernel
> > modules out of the tree meaningless.
> It has no advantages unless it's newer code.  I would just just a tree
> from oss.sgi.com or mainline instead.

The advantage is no xfs vs xfs.

> > lkml and this list sometimes consider NFS & XFS a dangerous
> > combination stackwise. Urban legend or is there truth to it?
> For x86:
>     XFS + 4KSTACKS used to fail trivially.
>     Things have been improved greatly (the xfsqa tests now apparently
>     pass with 4KSTACKS).
>     With 4KSTACKS using NFS, loop, dm, RAID, LVM in combination with
>     XFS will still break in some cases.

That's a blocker then, typical RHEL4 uses LVM2 partitioned disks if
not told otherwise, and the rest is also not something you can have
users live w/o. :(

Thanks for the update!
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpfNE3MvlLPx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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