Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

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)


This search system is powered by Namazu