Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 May 2002 21:34:20 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.5.14.. |
| |
Daniel Pittman wrote: > > On Mon, 6 May 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 6 May 2002, Daniel Pittman wrote: > >> > >> From the look of the changelog at least a few of the file corruption > >> bugs with ext3, 2k block file systems and 2.5 have been fixed. Should > >> I expect this release to address the problems I was seeing? > > > > "Expect" is too strong a word. I'd say "hope" - a number of truncate > > bugs were fixed, but whether that was what bit you, nobody knows. > > > > I suspect the real answer is that we'd love for you to test things > > out, but that if it ends up being too painful to recover if the > > problems happen again, you probably shouldn't.. > > Right. I got brave enough to test it on a real, live system after > extensive fake testing. It seems to work well, at least so far as > running the same workload that cause massive file corruption correctly.
hmm.
> So, I believe that 2.5.14 is working correctly with 2k ext3 filesystems, > at least for minimal use. I didn't do any sort of extreme load testing > or anything like that, being cautious about it.
I've been testing 2.5.14 pretty hard for a couple of days.
ext2, ext3-ordered, ext3-writeback (all with small blocks) are solid.
reiserfs and vfat are solid.
JFS deadlocks (see the BUGBUG comment in jfs_txnmgr.c - it happens). I've asked the JFS guys for help on this; possibly the code can just be removed: the buffer-based writeout which I replaced wouldn't have written the pages anyway...
ext3-journalled is not happy.
There's a locking bug between try_to_free_buffers and buffer_insert_inode_queue which never seems to trigger. I've got that fixed.
There's a known race between unmount and writeback which is probably impossible to trigger. (see the FIXME at __sync_list). Testing the fix for that at present.
The "sync" functions aren't right. Pages which are both dirty and under writeback are not correctly waited upon. This is a minor correctness thing which nobody would notice. Still thinking about the best way to close this.
So unless you're a JFS or ext3-journalled user, 2.5.14 is OK.
> On reboot, I got an assertion in ext3, though, and the following BUG > trace. So, something still isn't well, but it seems to be getting it > much more right. :) > > ... > > >>EIP; c015cf45 <journal_dirty_metadata+13d/174> <===== > > ... > Code; c015cf45 <journal_dirty_metadata+13d/174> <===== > 0: 0f 0b ud2a <===== > Code; c015cf47 <journal_dirty_metadata+13f/174> > 2: 60 pusha > Code; c015cf48 <journal_dirty_metadata+140/174> > 3: 04 40 add $0x40,%al
04 60 -> line 1120. Yup, I get that one too. I assume you were testing with data=journal.
Thanks again...
- - 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/
| |