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
Description: PGP signature