Re: Linux v2.6.18-rc5

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 01:30 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 29/08/06, Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 12:35:00PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > On 28/08/06, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 12:10 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > > > Not really a regression, more like a long standing bug, but XFS has
> > > > > issues in 2.6.18-rc* (and earlier kernels, at least post 2.6.11).
> > > > and you are saying this issue exists in all post .11 kernels?
> >
> > I would be surprised if this is not a day one bug, it probably
> > even affects the IRIX version of XFS.  Our problem is the lack
> > of a test case to find it - my efforts have come to naught so
> > far.  I'm having to cross my fingers that Jesper can extract a
> > bit more information when he's next able to hit it.
> >
> I'm trying my best, but it's difficult. Often I can only run the -rc
> kernel for a few hours on the box that currently shows the problem,
> and that's not enough to hit the fault.
> I've configured a XFS partition on my home workstation and I'm keeping
> that one busy doing various rsync's and running benchmarks etc -
> putting as much different stress on the XFS filesystem as I can. I'm
> also setting up a test box at work to try and duplicate the problem on
> a non-production server. I won't be able to duplicate the setup
> exactly, but it'll be close.

i have nyself tested xfs in -rc5 now, doing rsync over and over, and
been unable to hit any problem, it indeed seems very hard to reproduce.

> 
> > > > > See the thread titled "2.6.18-rc3-git3 - XFS - BUG: unable to handle
> > > > > kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000078" for the
> > > > > full story.
> >
> > That, and another story - Jesper hijacked that thread ;) - the
> 
> Sorry ;)
> 
> > inital bug there was found and fixed, and the fix has now been
> > merged.  But (fyi, Kasper) much of that thread is discussing a
> > different bug to this one.
> >
> 
> True. I should have emphasised that.
> 
>