Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Dec 2002 14:59:05 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Exaggerated swap usage |
| |
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:13:22AM +0100, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 01:59, you wrote: > > Hi Andrea, > > > this is the interesting one. Did you run any unstable kernel/driver > > software combination recently or maybe you got oopsed or crashes? > nope, no oops, no crash, afaik no unstable kernel/drivers. Kernel is yours ;) > and drivers, hmm, just intel i815, eepro100. That happend after some hours of > uptime and just doing "rm -rf linux-old" > > > journaling sometime gives a false sense of reliability, you've to keep > > in mind that unless you know why you had to reboot w/o a clean unmount > > you should always force an e2fsck -f/reiserfsck in single user mode at > > the next boot, no matter of journaling. If the machine crashed because > Yep, I always do a forced fsck in case of that. > > > of a kernel oops or similar skipping the filesystemcheck at the very > > next boot could left the fs corrupted for a long time until you notice > > it possibly while running an unrelated kernel. So if you crashed > > recently and you didn't run any e2fsck -f that could explain it. I doubt > I run e2fsck -fy every time after a crash. Fortunately it doesn't happen so > often :-)
ok ;) I asked just in case.
> > > ... > > don't know the details of the bug at the time of the next reboot so > > normally an e2fsck -f is always required after a kernel crash, this > > can't be automated simply because if the kernel is crashed we can't > > write to the superblock to notify e2fsck about it, so at the next boot > > e2fsck will always think replying the log was enough). > yep. I tried to remove that 00_umount-against-unused-dirty-inodes-race fix and > after that (now 5 hours uptime) doing only copying and deleting, that ext3fs > error is away. > > > Of course your problem could be explained by a bad cable or whatever > > else hardware failure too. At the moment I doubt it's a problem in the > > common code of my tree or mainline. > seems it's a problem in the umount-against-unused-dirty-inodes-race fix or if > the fix "is the right way" the problem is located somewhere else what > triggers the problem of your patch.
can you reproduce in 2.4.20aa1 too?
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |