Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*another\s+problem\s+with\s+latest\s+code\s+drops\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*another\s+problem\s+with\s+latest\s+code\s+drops\s*$/: 33 ]

Total 33 documents matching your query.

1. another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:06:21 +1000; fsstress started reporting these errors fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure ... The filesystem; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00285.html (15,652 bytes)
2. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:02:47 +1100; I bet the filesystem has been shut down.... [snip] Ah, yes. A shutdown in a directory transaction. Have you applied the fix to the directory block allocation transaction accounting that was one of th; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00302.html (11,836 bytes)
3. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:38:39 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06:21PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: fsstress started reporting these errors fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cw; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00304.html (12,418 bytes)
4. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:20:19 +1100; .... OK. I just ran up the same load in a UML session. I'd say it's this slab: 2482 2481 99% 0.23K 146 17 584K xfs_btree_cur which is showing a leak. It is slowly growing on my system and dropping th; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00305.html (10,868 bytes)
5. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:35:03 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:38:39PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06:21PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: fsstress started reporting th; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00306.html (12,032 bytes)
6. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:08:05 -0400; Are you using slab or slub? The latter merges caches of equal size, so it's totally useless for the kind of debug stats Dave looked at.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00308.html (9,773 bytes)
7. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:29:04 +1100; Overnight the xfs_btree_cur slab made it up to about 7000 in use entries, so there is definitely a leak there, though it is a slow one. Ah - I don't run selinux. Sounds like a bug that needs reportin; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00320.html (12,670 bytes)
8. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:13:47 +1000; Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 06:35:03PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: I'm not seeing a leak in that slab - actually that slab doesn't even show up. I am seeing a lot of memory use; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00327.html (10,538 bytes)
9. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:17:46 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 06:35:03PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:38:39PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, O; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00328.html (13,708 bytes)
10. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:21:41 +1100; I can't think of how. The layers above XFS are symmetric: alloc_inode() inode_init_always() security_inode_alloc() ..... security_inode_free() ->destroy_inode() So the filesystems should never, ever; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00329.html (12,227 bytes)
11. Re: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:10:21 -0400; I've been running for i in $(seq 1 8); do fsstress -p 64 -n 10000000 -d /mnt/data/fsstress.$i & done for about 20 hours now, and I'm only up to a few hundred xfs_btree_cur entires, not changing much; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg00369.html (9,544 bytes)
12. 988142 - Remove use of m_ilock from mount structure as it no longer exists. (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx (Tim Shimmin); Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:06:21 +1000; fsstress started reporting these errors fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure ... The filesystem; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01106.html (15,469 bytes)
13. functions (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:02:47 +1100; I bet the filesystem has been shut down.... [snip] Ah, yes. A shutdown in a directory transaction. Have you applied the fix to the directory block allocation transaction accounting that was one of th; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01123.html (11,657 bytes)
14. - move the AIl traversal over to a consistent interface (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx (Tim Shimmin); Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:38:39 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06:21PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: fsstress started reporting these errors fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cwd failure fsstress: check_cw; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01125.html (12,235 bytes)
15. nt interface (score: 1): Author: roy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:20:19 +1100; .... OK. I just ran up the same load in a UML session. I'd say it's this slab: 2482 2481 99% 0.23K 146 17 584K xfs_btree_cur which is showing a leak. It is slowly growing on my system and dropping th; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01126.html (10,689 bytes)
16. hines to avoid the AIL lock during flushes (score: 1): Author: <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:35:03 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:38:39PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:06:21PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: fsstress started reporting th; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01127.html (11,849 bytes)
17. nto the struct xfs_ail (score: 1): Author: g <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:08:05 -0400; Are you using slab or slub? The latter merges caches of equal size, so it's totally useless for the kind of debug stats Dave looked at.; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01129.html (9,594 bytes)
18. e: another problem with latest code drops (score: 1): Author: <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:29:04 +1100; Overnight the xfs_btree_cur slab made it up to about 7000 in use entries, so there is definitely a leak there, though it is a slow one. Ah - I don't run selinux. Sounds like a bug that needs reportin; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01141.html (12,491 bytes)
19. e] [PATCH] XFS fix remount rw with unrecognized options (score: 1): Author: Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:13:47 +1000; Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 06:35:03PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: I'm not seeing a leak in that slab - actually that slab doesn't even show up. I am seeing a lot of memory use; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01148.html (10,355 bytes)
20. ized options (score: 1): Author: roy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:17:46 +1000; Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 06:35:03PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 05:38:39PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: Dave Chinner wrote: On Thu, O; /archives/xfs/2008-10/msg01149.html (13,525 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]