Hi guys,
The reiserfs commit thread needs to daemonize. This patch
was actually from Andi Kleen eons ago (but blame me if
it breaks). Please apply.
Against 2.4.3:
--- linux/fs/reiserfs/journal.c Thu Apr 19 14:02:56 2001
+++ linux/fs/reiserfs/journal.c Thu Apr 19 18:11:57 2001
@@ -1814,16 +1
Hi guys,
This patch is not meant to replace Neil Brown's knfsd ops stuff, the
goal was to whip up something that had a chance of getting into 2.4.x,
and that might be usable by the AFS guys too. Neil's patch tries to
address a bunch of things that I didn't, and looks better for the
long run.
On Monday, February 12, 2001 11:42:38 PM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> Do you know if the people reporting the corruption with reiserfs on
>> 2.4 were using IDE drives with PIO mode and IDE multicount turned on?
>>
>> If so, it may be caused by the problem fixed
On Tuesday, February 13, 2001 01:39:02 AM +0300 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris, your quoting is very confusing above. but I get your very
> interesting remark (thanks for noticing) that the nulls are specific to
> crashes on 2.2, and therefor could be due to the elevator bug
Hello everyone,
I think Alexander Zarochentcev and I have finally figured out
cause for null bytes in small reiserfs files. reiserfs stores
parts of these files packed together in the tree, and the
packed bytes can shift around as the tree is balanced.
When converting from the packed bytes to
On Friday, February 16, 2001 05:01:39 PM +0100 Xuan Baldauf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I think Alexander Zarochentcev and I have finally figured out
>> cause for null bytes in small reiserf
On Saturday, February 17, 2001 05:21:18 PM +0100 Frank de Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi'all,
>
> Well, subject says it all... When I try to compile mozilla (CVS version)
> with the '--enable-elf-dynstr-gc' option, the compile fails with a
> segfault:
>
> ../../dist/bin/elf-dynstr-gc .
On Sunday, February 18, 2001 02:10:50 AM +0100 Frank de Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At least the patch didn't make it worse. Would anyone care to comment on
>> how the elf-dynstr-gc option changes the file access patterns for the
>> compile?
>
> It does not change the file access pa
On Sunday, February 18, 2001 03:07:27 AM +0100 Frank de Lange
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And no, I'm not running RedHat 7.x for those who might think so (and
> automatically blame everything on it).
>
Minor nit, but I'd rather clear it up now. Which distribution you run
doesn't matter for
On Monday, February 19, 2001 01:55:57 AM + Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> it had been cleared up. In particular, the Configure.help in 2.4.2-pre4
>> says "reiserfs can be used for anything that ext2 can be used for".
>
> The configure.help is wrong on that and one other thing. NFS
On Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:40:24 AM +1100 Neil Brown
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When reiserfs came along, it abused this, and re-interpreted the
> opaque datum to contain information for recalling (locating) an
> inode - if read_inode2 was defined. I think this is wrong.
>
I s
On Tuesday, February 20, 2001 03:33:33 AM -0800 David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Kevin Turner wrote:
>
>> Version:
>> Linux version 2.4.1-pre12 (gcc version 2.95.3 20010125 (prerelease))
>>
>> Possible suspect players:
>> dpkg seems to trigger the bug
>> ReiserFS is the partition that
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 09:54:19 AM +1100 Brian May
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "dek" == dek ml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> dek> OK so I think what I can take from this is: for kernel 2.4 in
> dek> the foreseeable future, reiserfs over NFS won't work without
> dek
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 01:44:10 AM +0100 Arnaud Installe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've had a problem with a reiserfs partition on a 2.2.17 kernel the other
> day. Everything I did on it just waited forever. (Since shutdown tries
> to umount all partitions the only way
On Wednesday, February 21, 2001 07:30:47 PM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>
> I'd love to hear the results from R5, as that seems to be the reiserfs
> favourite, and I'm trying it out in 2.4.2 because it was so easy to plug
> i
On Friday, February 23, 2001 05:03:40 PM + Patrick Mackinlay
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When 2.4.1 was released I reported a kernel oops with reiserfs, I got no
> response.
Hmmm, don't seem to have any other reiserfs mail from you. Sorry I missed
it.
[ ...]
>
> kernel oops report:
>>>
On Friday, February 23, 2001 10:18:56 PM +0100 Erik Mouw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am running linux-2.4.2-pre4 with Chris Mason's tailconversion bug fix
> applied, but I still have problems with null bytes in files. I wrote a
> little test program that clearly shows the proble
On Saturday, February 24, 2001 04:45:04 PM +0100 Arjan Filius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tried Erik's trigger-program.
>
> After some test i thing it's memory related, and it seems to match the
> other reports i saw on lkm.
> With my 384M ram i was not able te reproduce it.
> W
On Saturday, February 24, 2001 08:53:15 PM + Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 32Mb. The test results vary depending on what else is on the partition,
>> but in each case the last file affected is 01017 and there are sequences
>> of previous_number+4, for up to 8 files (but next file a
Ok, found it. It is related to the last null byte problem in that it also
only happens when the direct item is split between two blocks. This is
more likely as the tail increases in size, which is why you saw it on
larger small files.
The bug is in the code that zeros the unused part of the un
Hi guys,
This patch should take care of the other cause for null bytes
in small files. It has been through a few hours of testing,
with some of the usual load programs + Erik's code concurrently.
I'll let things run overnight to try and find more bugs. The
patch is against 2.4.2, and does a f
On Thursday, March 01, 2001 12:05:50 PM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Alan, fix is really quite simple. Especially if you have vmtruncate()
>> returning int (ac1 used to do it, I didn't check
filesystems need to grab the bkl on their own for fsync now:
-chris
--- linux/Documentation/filesystems/Locking.1 Fri Mar 2 11:20:18 2001
+++ linux/Documentation/filesystems/Locking Fri Mar 2 11:21:10 2001
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@
open: maybe (see below)
flush: yes
rele
On Friday, March 02, 2001 12:39:01 PM -0600 Steve Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ file_fsync syncs all dirty buffers on the FS ]
>
> So it looks like fsync is going to cost more for bigger devices. Given the
> O_SYNC changes Stephen Tweedie did, couldnt fsync look more like this:
>
>
On Friday, March 02, 2001 01:25:25 PM -0600 Steve Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For why ide is beating scsi in this benchmark...make sure tagged queueing
>> is on (or increase the queue length?). For the xlog.c test posted, I
>> would expect scsi to get faster than ide as the size of the
On Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:48:13 AM +0100 Christoph Rohland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Just noticed the filemap_fdatasync code doesn't check the return value
>> from writepage. Linus, would you take a patch tha
Ok, lets just fix filemap_fdatasync. We can tackle the msync/fsync
interaction with screwed up FS writepages later, since all of the existing
writepage funcs are safe. The problems I see with filemap_fdatasync when
writepage returns 1:
The page dirty bit is not reset.
the page is never unlocked
Hi guys,
Looks like the prerelease, and at least test13 don't fsync the device when
someone does an unmount on /
mount -o remount works, just unmounting the root misses the fsync.
This patch works for me:
-chris
--- linux/fs/super.c.1 Thu Jan 4 13:38:55 2001
+++ linux/fs/super.cThu Jan
On Thursday, January 04, 2001 01:58:47 PM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> Looks like the prerelease, and at least test13 don't fsync the device
>> when someone does an unmount on /
>>
>> mo
Hello everyone,
This patch is meant to be applied on top of the reiserfs
3.6.23 patch to get everything working in the new prerelease
kernels. The order is:
untar linux-2.4.0-prerelease.tar.bz2
apply linux-2.4.0-test12-reiserfs-3.6.23.gz
apply this patch
apply the fs/super.c patch to make sure
On Friday, January 05, 2001 02:04:08 PM +0100 Claas Langbehn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 04:52:49PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
>> This patch is meant to be applied on top of the reiserfs
>> 3.6.23 patch to get everything working in the new prerel
Here's the latest version of the patch, against 2.4.0. The
biggest open issues are what to do with bdflush, since
page_launder could do everything bdflush does. And, how to
deal with writepage funcs that return 1 for fsync_inode_buffers.
-chris
diff -urN linux.2.4.0/fs/buffer.c linux/fs/buffe
On Friday, January 05, 2001 02:54:53 PM -0200 Rik van Riel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Evans wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> > > Could someone create one single patch for the 2.4.0 ?
>> > >
>>
On Friday, January 05, 2001 01:43:07 PM -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the latest version of the patch, against 2.4.0. The
>> biggest open issues are what to do with b
On Friday, January 05, 2001 01:43:07 PM -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the latest version of the patch, against 2.4.0. The
>> biggest open issues are what to do with b
On Friday, January 05, 2001 04:32:50 PM -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think we want to remove flush_dirty_buffers() from bdflush.
>> >
>>
>> Whoops. If bdflush doesn't balance the dirty list, who does?
>
> Who marks buffers dirty.
>
> Linus changed mark_buffer_
quested.
> Because there may be multiple copies of the same block in the
> journal, one should take the newest one that can be found in
> the last commited transaction.
>
> IMHO Chris Mason already wrote such code, at least he talked about
> it...
>
Talked about it, but never
On Sunday, January 07, 2001 03:48:41 AM +0100 Daniel Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A null buffer was passed by kupdate_one_transaction (looks like a
> Reiserfs function) to __refile_buffer. Chris?
>
Known bug, there should be another reiserfs release soon that includes the
fix. The
On Monday, January 08, 2001 09:02:46 AM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan, consider applying the patch below.
> Contents:
[snip]
> + do {
> + if (buffer_mapped(bh)) {
> + bh->b_end_io = end_buffer_io_async;
> + atomic_
On Monday, January 08, 2001 10:47:41 AM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + do {
> + if (buffer_mapped(bh)) {
> + bh->b_end_io = end_buffer_io_async;
> + atomic_inc(&bh->b_count);
> + set_bit(BH_Uptodate,
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 02:32:09 AM +0100 Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> EIP; c013f911<=
> Trace; c013f706
> Trace; c0136e01
The buffer reiserfs is sending to filldir is big enough for
the huge file name, so I think the real fix should be done in VFSland.
But, in
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 02:32:09 AM +0100 Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> EIP; c013f911<=
> Trace; c013f706
> Trace; c0136e01
>
Here is a patch against our 2.4 code (3.6.25) that does the
same as the patch posted for 3.5.29:
-chris
--- linux/include/linux/reiserf
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:42:01 AM +0100 Marc Lehmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are still investigating, but there seems to be a major security problem
> in at least some versions of reiserfs. Since reiserfs is shipped with
> newer versions of SuSE Linux and the problem is too eas
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:47:17 AM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, actual code really looks like the end of filldir(). If that's the
> case we are deep in it - argument of filldir() gets screwed. buf, that is.
> Since it happens after we've already done derefe
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 07:02:08 PM +0300 "Vladimir V. Saveliev"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 02:32:09 AM +0100 Marc Lehmann
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> &g
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:38:34 PM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> In filldir, I don't like the line where we ((char *)dirent += reclen ;
>> If reclen is much larger than the buffer sent from
On Wednesday, January 10, 2001 05:56:09 PM -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> It seems there is a possible deadlock condition with your patch which
> changes flush_dirty_buffers() to use ->writepage (something which we
> _definately_ want for 2.5). Take a look:
Hi guys,
This code for generic_file_write calls vmtruncate without i_sem held. Is
that intentional? It should cause problems for reiserfs at least...
-chris
diff -u --new-file --recursive --exclude-from /usr/src/exclude
linux-2.4.0/mm/filemap.c linux.ac/mm/filemap.c
--- linux-2.4.0/mm/filema
On Friday, January 12, 2001 04:30:44 PM -0500 Alexander Viro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> This code for generic_file_write calls vmtruncate without i_sem held. Is
>>
On Saturday, January 13, 2001 11:41:51 PM -0800 hugang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ patch ]
Odd, the create_vi op should never be null, so the real fix is somewhere
else. We'll look into this.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Tuesday, January 16, 2001 07:38:58 PM +0100 Jakob Borg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> It seems the problem occurs every time i start fetchmail... Attached are
> ksymoops output and .config (if i remember this time). If there is
> anything else I can do to help debug this, just t
On Tuesday, January 16, 2001 07:58:37 PM +0100 Jakob Borg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:36:43AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> > I seem to remember more possibly useful information scrolling by my
>> > screen, but it seems to not have made it to the logs, and I will s
On Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:56:10 AM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Marcelo Tosatti writes:
>> >
>> > While taking a look at page_launder()...
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > set_page_dirty() may lock the pagecache_lock which means potential
>> > deadlock since we have the page
On Saturday, January 20, 2001 02:59:24 PM -0500 Gregory Maxwell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 02:50:16PM -0500, Shawn Starr wrote:
>> It just seems that since using 2.4 ive noticed my poor Pentium 200Mhz
>> slow down whether being in X or otherwise. It just seems that th
On Tuesday, November 28, 2000 14:29:34 +0100 Blizbor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Machine: P3 500 on ASUS P2B, WD 15GB IDE drive.
> System RH7 with upgraded glibc.
>
> When I'm using 2.2.17 with ReiserFS:
> Nov 26 00:05:05 localhost kernel: Linux version 2.2.17
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc versi
On 9/3/00, 3:20:01 AM, Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding
Re: 2.4.0-test8-pre1 is quite bad / how about integrating Rik's VM now?:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Not at all. In fact, I'd prefer it that way, because this same thing is
> > obviously going to be
--On 09/05/00 18:13:53 -0700 Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Udo A. Steinberg wrote:
>>
>> I'm still experiencing ext2 corruption even with the newest patch
>> test8-pre5. I'm not using bugtraq, mutt or pine and I'm fairly sure
>> it's not caused by a badly wr
--On 09/05/00 21:35:13 -0400 Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, hopefully this will make sense...
>
> __block_commit_write calls balance_dirty, which might wait on bdflush,
> running all the io on the page. The async_end_io handlers will unlock
> the page o
--On 09/11/00 07:45:16 -0400 Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
>>> Something between bigmem and his big VM changes makes reiserfs
>>> uncompilable. [..]
>
>> It's due LFS. Chris should have a reiserfs patch that compiles on top of
>> 2.2.18pre2aa2, right? (if not Chris, I can
--On 09/11/00 15:02:34 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In 2.2.18pre2aa2.bz2 there's a latency bugfix, now a:
>
> read(fd, &buf, 0x7fff)
> write(fd, &buf, 0x7fff)
> sendfile(src, dst, NULL, 0x7fff)
>
> doesn't hang the machine anymore for
--On 09/17/00 20:30:29 -0700 Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Basically, both "truncate()" and "write()" have this bug where they can
> end up re-reading stuff from disk even though the in-memory copy is newer.
>
> And because write() had this bug, the bug also got into
> block_wri
--On 09/18/00 09:16:22 -0400 Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> ReiserFS depends on the buffer head up to date flag being correct when it
>> is sent to get_block. When unpacking the tail, we have to
--On 09/16/00 10:53:04 +0900 Hisaaki Shibata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> few weeks ago, I installed a PROMISE Ultra66 IDE card into my SMP Linux
> box. But my box sometimes hang up at high load avarage with "stuck on TLB
> IPI wait (CPU#0)" messages.
> I upgrade my kernel to 2.2.17 bu
--On 09/18/00 08:52:12 -0700 Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> ReiserFS depends on the buffer head up to date flag being correct when it
>> is sent to get_block. When unpacking the tail, we have
--On 09/18/00 12:23:43 -0400 Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> When reiserfs_get_block is called on the packed data (with create == 1),
>> we unpack it to a full block, so the generic functions can handle
>> di
--On 09/18/00 13:19:27 -0400 Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> I'm not trying to put it all into a single get_block call, we have
>> different get_block funcs for different purposes. What I'
On 9/5/00, 5:26:29 AM, Daniel Phillips wrote
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> >
> > > Rasmus, you introduced a bug because you removed the code but left the
> > > comment around. now /* this should go into ->truncate */ is there and
very
> > > confus
--On 10/12/00 00:24:48 +0200 Dewet Diener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just experienced the following Oops: It's reproducible, the offender
> being netscape 4.75. Reverting back to 2.4.0-test9 fixes the
> problem. Both kernels were compiled with the same config.
>
Do you have highmem turne
On Friday, November 03, 2000 15:56:36 + Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> Simply starting the validation phase of SPEC SFS with NFS mounted reiserfs
>> filesystem panics as shown in the log below. A quick look at th
On Friday, November 10, 2000 06:15:40 -0800 David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Over the last three weeks my box has been locking up w/ a black screen
> of death. This time I had kdb patched in and got the following:
>
> Entering kdb (current=0xcf906000, pid 16808) Panic: invalid operand
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Just one: any fs that really cares about completion callback is very likely
> to be picky about the requests ordering. So sync_buffers() is very unlikely
> to be useful anyway.
>
Somewhat. I guess there are at least two ways to do it. First flush
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, David D.W. Downey wrote:
>
> I've been reading the thread regarding data corruption with 2.4.0-test12,
> reiserfs, and smp.
>
> Unfrotunately I've not seen any resolution announced about this. Is this
> still an issue or has this been fixed?
>
reiserfs and test12 won't pl
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Yes, the same `current' context must run the down/up pair of calls and as you
> > said it is legal to rely on it on all the places it's used.
>
> I assume thats not an issue to reiserfs ?
>
I don't think so. There are two places reiserfs calls down/up
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[ writepage for anon buffers ]
>
> It might be 10 lines of change, and obviously correct.
>
I'll give this a try, it will be interesting regardless of if it is simple
enough for kernel inclusion.
On a related note, I hit a snag porting reiserfs int
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Your patch looks fine, although I'd personally prefer this one even more:
>
Yes, that looks better and works here.
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pleas
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Russell Cattelan wrote:
> >
> I'm curious about this.
> Does the mean reiserFS is doing all of it's own buffer management?
>
> This would seem a little redundant with what is already in the kernel?
>
For metadata only reiserfs does its own write management. The buffers
co
Hello everyone,
Following patch against test13pre3 will export submit_bh, which reiserfs
needs to work as a module. Seems like others would need it too...
-chris
--- linux-test13-3/kernel/ksyms.c.1 Tue Dec 19 05:08:37 2000
+++ linux-test13-3/kernel/ksyms.c Tue Dec 19 05:05:07 2000
@
On 17 Dec 2000, Henrik [ISO-8859-1] Størner wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alexander Viro
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jorg de Jong wrote:
>
> >> > >On 13 Dec 2000, Henrik [ISO-8859-1] Størner wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Just to add a "me too" on this. I didn't repor
On Wednesday, December 20, 2000 13:03:00 +0100 Matthias Andree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last night, one of your production machines got wedged, I caught a lot
> of kernel: VM: do_try_to_free_pages failed for ... for a whole range of
> processes, among them ypbind, klogd, syslogd, xntpd, cro
Ok guys, I think I've taken Linus' suggestion to have buffer.c use its
own writepage a bit too far. This patch marks pages dirty when the
buffer head is marked dirty, and changes flush_dirty_buffers and
sync_buffers to use writepage instead of ll_rw_block. The idea is
to allow filesystems t
On Thursday, December 21, 2000 20:54:09 -0500 Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> Obvious bug, block_write_full_page zeros out the bits past the end of
>> file every time. This should not be
On Thursday, December 21, 2000 22:38:04 -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
>> Marcelo Tosatti writes:
>> > It seems your code has a problem with bh flush time.
>> >
>> > In flush_dirty_buffers(), a buffer may (if being called fr
On Thursday, December 21, 2000 22:38:04 -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Marcelo Tosatti writes:
>> > It seems your code has a problem with bh flush time.
>> >
>> > In flush_dirty_buffers(), a buffer may (if being called from kupdate)
>> > only be written in case its old eno
On Friday, December 22, 2000 17:45:57 +0100 Daniel Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ flushing a page at a time in bdflush ]
> Um. Why cater to the uncommon case of 1K blocks? Just let
> bdflush/kupdated deal with them in the normal way - it's pretty
> efficient. Only try to do the clust
On Friday, December 22, 2000 17:52:28 -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is one more nasty issue to deal with.
>
> You only want to take into account the buffer flushtime if
> "check_flushtime" parameter is passed as true to flush_dirty_buffers
> (which is done by kupdat
On Friday, December 22, 2000 21:26:33 -0200 Marcelo Tosatti
> If we use ll_rw_block directly on buffers of anonymous pages
> (page->mapping == &anon_space_mapping) instead using
> dirty_list_writepage() (which will end up calling block_write_anon_page)
> we can fix the buffer flushtime issue.
>
On Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:02:53 -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Which is why I prefer the higher layers handling the dirty/uptodate/xxx
> bits.
>
Grin, I should have taken the hint when we talked about the buffer up to
date checks for block_read_full_page, it made
Hi guys,
Here's my latest code, which uses ll_rw_block for anon pages (or
pages without a writepage func) when flush_dirty_buffers,
sync_buffers, or fsync_inode_buffers are flushing things. This
seems to have fixed my slowdown on 1k buffer sizes, but I
haven't done extensive benchmarks yet.
O
On Wednesday, December 27, 2000 21:26:02 +0100 Daniel Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Chris. I took your patch for a test drive under dbench and it seems
> impressively stable under load, but there are performance problems.
>
>Test machine: 64 meg, 500 Mhz K6, IDE, Ext2, Bloc
On Thursday, December 28, 2000 16:15:48 +0100 Daniel Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>
>> > It's logical that PageDirty should never be get for ramfs,
>>
>> No. Not setting PageDirty will cause the
On Thursday, December 28, 2000 15:51:24 -0200 Rik van Riel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>> I think a dirty page without a writepage func seems a bit
>> broken. How about we give ramfs a writepage func that just
>> return
On Thursday, December 28, 2000 16:49:14 +0100 Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ dbench 48 test on the anon space mapping patch ]
>
> This benchmark doesn't seem to suffer a lot from noise, so the 7%
> slowdown with your patch likely real.
>
Ok, page_launder is supposed to run th
On Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:29:01 AM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ skipping io on the first walk in page_launder ]
>
> There are some arguments for starting the writeout early, but there are
> tons of arguments against it too (the main one being "avoid doing IO if
> yo
On Friday, December 29, 2000 06:58:01 PM +0100 Daniel Phillips
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> BTW, the last anon space mapping patch I sent also works on test13-pre5.
>> The block_truncate_page fix does help my patch, since I have bdflus
On Saturday, December 30, 2000 06:28:39 PM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are only two real advantages to deferred writing:
>
> - not having to do get_block() at all for temp-files, as we never have to
>do the allocation if we end up removing the file.
>
>NO
Hi guys,
Just noticed the filemap_fdatasync code doesn't check the return value from
writepage. Linus, would you take a patch that redirtied the page, puts it
back onto the dirty list (at the tail), and unlocks the page when writepage
returns 1?
That would loop forever if the writepage func ke
On Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:28:05 AM -0800 Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> Just noticed the filemap_fdatasync code doesn't check the return value
>> from writepage. Linus, would you take a patch
On Thursday, March 08, 2001 04:17:23 PM +0200 Mircea Damian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I NEED TO TRACE THIS!!!
>
> I had two crashes with 2.4.2 and 2.4.2-pre2 on my local
> SMTP/POP3/SAMBA/WWW server (once under some load and the second one -
> with 2.4.2-pre2 - while it was a
On Thursday, March 08, 2001 08:36:51 AM -0100 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm 99.9% certain that those patches referred to have been merged with the
> latest 2.4.2-acX, but just to make it 100% certain I'm asking this
> question. At www.namesys.com, the reiserfs website,
On Wednesday, March 07, 2001 08:56:59 PM + "Stephen C. Tweedie"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 09:15:36PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 07 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>> >
>> > For most fs'es, that's not an issue. The fs won't start writeback o
101 - 200 of 788 matches
Mail list logo
