3.16.7-ckt2 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
know.
--
From: Thorsten Knabe
commit 2a2361228c5e6d8c1733f00653481de918598e50 upstream.
Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. T
From: Thorsten Knabe
3.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
===
commit 2a2361228c5e6d8c1733f00653481de918598e50 upstream.
Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. This bug was
3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Thorsten Knabe
commit 2a2361228c5e6d8c1733f00653481de918598e50 upstream.
Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. This bug w
3.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
--
From: Thorsten Knabe
commit 2a2361228c5e6d8c1733f00653481de918598e50 upstream.
Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. This bug w
3.13.11.10 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me
know.
--
From: Thorsten Knabe
commit 2a2361228c5e6d8c1733f00653481de918598e50 upstream.
Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. Th
>>>> Am 23.08.2014 19:43, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
>>>>>> Hi Richard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/23/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A
; Hi Richard.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/23/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 23.08.2014 15:47, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
>>>>>>> From: Thorsten Knabe
>>>>>
8/23/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 23.08.2014 15:47, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
>>>>>> From: Thorsten Knabe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D state forever in
>>>> Am 23.08.2014 15:47, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
>>>>> From: Thorsten Knabe
>>>>>
>>>>> UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D state forever in UserModeLinux.
>>>>>
>>>>> Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stu
From: Thorsten Knabe
>>>>
>>>> UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D state forever in UserModeLinux.
>>>>
>>>> Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
>>>> UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. This bug was int
Am 23.08.2014 19:43, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
> Hi Richard.
>
> On 08/23/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Am 23.08.2014 15:47, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
>>> From: Thorsten Knabe
>>>
>>> UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D
Hi Richard.
On 08/23/2014 05:34 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Am 23.08.2014 15:47, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
>> From: Thorsten Knabe
>>
>> UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D state forever in UserModeLinux.
>>
>> Starting with Linux 3.12 pr
Hi!
Am 23.08.2014 15:47, schrieb Thorsten Knabe:
> From: Thorsten Knabe
>
> UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D state forever in UserModeLinux.
>
> Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
> UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. This bug
From: Thorsten Knabe
UML: UBD: Fix for processes stuck in D state forever in UserModeLinux.
Starting with Linux 3.12 processes get stuck in D state forever in
UserModeLinux under sync heavy workloads. This bug was introduced by
commit 805f11a0d5 (um: ubd: Add REQ_FLUSH suppport).
Fix bug by
27;ll find out more on Monday.
Ok. Not sure why it didn't boot the first time (black screen) but it
booted the second time. This time both CPUs got initialised and are in
use, no kernel oops during init and no kernel processes stuck in D
state. Should've tried .24 earlier but .
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:20:58PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> CaT wrote:
> > Not sure what other info to provide
>
> Is the bug present in 2.6.24-rc7?
Can't rightly say. I didn't try it before because 2.6.23 fails to
compile under debian sarge. 2.6.24-rc7 did compile but it has failed to
come
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 07:12:33PM +1100, CaT wrote:
> I recently upgraded from an amd 64bit system to an intel one and changed my
> kernekl accordingly. Everything's great except this:
>
> root 6 0.0 0.0 00 ?D< 17:11 0:00 [migration/1]
> root 7 0.0 0.0
CaT wrote:
> Not sure what other info to provide
Is the bug present in 2.6.24-rc7?
--
Stefan Richter
-=-==--- ---= -=-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
I recently upgraded from an amd 64bit system to an intel one and changed my
kernekl accordingly. Everything's great except this:
root 6 0.0 0.0 00 ?D< 17:11 0:00 [migration/1]
root 7 0.0 0.0 00 ?D< 17:11 0:00 [ksoftirqd/1]
root 8
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:11:45 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:46:47 +0800 Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you(including David:-)) for the confirmation.
> >
> > Andrew: so mm-speed-up-writeback-ramp-up-on-clean-systems.patch is a
> > s
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:46:47 +0800 Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you(including David:-)) for the confirmation.
>
> Andrew: so mm-speed-up-writeback-ramp-up-on-clean-systems.patch is a
> safe and working patch ;-)
So is anything happening with this patch? It is really necessary
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:26:09PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:17:17 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:00:06PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > >
> > > Could you try with the attached 4 patches? Two of them are expected to
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:17:17 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:00:06PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >
> > Could you try with the attached 4 patches? Two of them are expected to
> > fix your problem, another two are debugging ones(in case the problem
>
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:46:26 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am seeing something very similar on a PowerPC machine where copying a
> file from an LVM volume with ext3 on it to a simple scsi partition (again
> ext3) on the same disk will hang in congestion_wait. If I am patie
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:00:06PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> Could you try with the attached 4 patches? Two of them are expected to
> fix your problem, another two are debugging ones(in case the problem
> persists).
Applying these four patches fixes it for me. Obviously the reiserfs patch w
Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 06:23:07PM +, David wrote:
>
>> I've attached the output of Sysrq-T to this mail... system is a
>> dual-core AMD64, and files are on a RAID-1 root partition connected two
>> SATA disks on the on-board NVidia controller. I've had no problems
>> be
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:46 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:23:07 + David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've been testing rc1 for a week or so, and about 25% of the time I'm
> > seeing Firefox and Thunderbird getting stuck in 'D' state as they startup.
> >
> > I've
[added CC list]
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 04:00:06PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 06:23:07PM +, David wrote:
> > I've been testing rc1 for a week or so, and about 25% of the time I'm
> > seeing Firefox and Thunderbird getting stuck in 'D' state as they startup.
> >
> > I
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 06:23:07PM +, David wrote:
> I've been testing rc1 for a week or so, and about 25% of the time I'm
> seeing Firefox and Thunderbird getting stuck in 'D' state as they startup.
>
> I've attached the output of Sysrq-T to this mail... system is a
> dual-core AMD64, and fil
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:23:07 + David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've been testing rc1 for a week or so, and about 25% of the time I'm
> seeing Firefox and Thunderbird getting stuck in 'D' state as they startup.
>
> I've attached the output of Sysrq-T to this mail... system is a
> dual-core
I've been testing rc1 for a week or so, and about 25% of the time I'm
seeing Firefox and Thunderbird getting stuck in 'D' state as they startup.
I've attached the output of Sysrq-T to this mail... system is a
dual-core AMD64, and files are on a RAID-1 root partition connected two
SATA disks on the
Pau Aliagas wrote:
> Since 2.2.4-ac28 and 2.4.3 I keep on getting processes in D state that I
> cannot kill, usually mozilla or nautilus which use a large amount of RAM.
I don't have time to help debug this, but I'm getting this too, with
2.4.3 final. The previous kernel I ran was 2.4.3-pre4, and
Since 2.2.4-ac28 and 2.4.3 I keep on getting processes in D state that I
cannot kill, usually mozilla or nautilus which use a large amount of RAM.
Today is galeon:
A ps -eo pid,stat,pcpu,nwchan,wchan=WIDE-WCHAN-COLUMN -o args shows the
following:
11520 D 0.0 105db1 down_write_failed /usr/bin
33 matches
Mail list logo
