Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:18:23 +1000 | From | Dave Chinner <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.34-rc3: simple du (on a big xfs tree) triggers oom killer [bisected: 57817c68229984818fea9e614d6f95249c3fb098] |
| |
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:50:35AM +0200, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote: > On Tuesday 13 April 2010, 00:32:41 Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 12:02:20AM +0200, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote: > > > On Wednesday 07 April 2010, 03:45:33 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > > The patches below apply to the xfs-dev tree, which is currently at > > > > 34-rc1. If they don't apply, let me know and I'll redo them against > > > > a vanilla kernel tree. Can you test them to see if the problem goes > > > > away? If the problem is fixed, I'll push them for a proper review > > > > cycle... > > > > > > Of course, you did the original patch for a reason... Therefor I would > > > love to test your patches. I've tried to apply them to 2.6.33.2, but > > > after fixing the same reject as noted below, I'm stuck here: > > > > > > /usr/src/packages/BUILD/kernel-default-2.6.33.2/linux-2.6.33/fs/xfs/lin > > >ux-2.6/xfs_sync.c: In function 'xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink': > > > /usr/src/packages/BUILD/kernel-default-2.6.33.2/linux-2.6.33/fs/xfs/lin > > >ux-2.6/xfs_sync.c:805: error: implicit declaration of function > > > 'xfs_perag_get' > > > /usr/src/packages/BUILD/kernel-default-2.6.33.2/linux-2.6.33/fs/xfs/lin > > >ux-2.6/xfs_sync.c:805: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer > > > without a cast > > > /usr/src/packages/BUILD/kernel-default-2.6.33.2/linux-2.6.33/fs/xfs/lin > > >ux-2.6/xfs_sync.c:807: error: implicit declaration of function > > > 'xfs_perag_put' > > > > > > Now I see, that there happened a rename of the offending functions, but > > > also they've grown a radix_tree structure and locking. How do I handle > > > that? > > > > With difficulty. I'd need to backport it to match the .33 code, > > which may or may not be trivial... > > Dave, may I ask you kindly for briefly elaborating on the worst consequences > of just reverting this hunk, as I've done before?
Well, given that is the new shrinker code generating the warnings, reverting/removing that hunk will render the patch useless :0
I'll get you a working 2.6.33 patch tomorrow - it's dinner time now....
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
| |