lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.4.23 crash on Intel SDS2


    On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Shane Wegner wrote:

    > > > It's a database machine running MySQL and Postgres. The
    > > > MySQL server runs about 4 queries/sec and PostGres only as
    > > > needed. It also does some minor mail service, say 2
    > > > messages per minute and runs apache at about 10 requests
    > > > per minute.
    > > >
    > > > > > There are no significant driver changes in -pre4 that could affect you.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Can you please try with mem=900M? I suspect something in the VM changes
    > > > > > might be causing this.
    > > >
    > > > Just tried with mem=900m and subsequently mem=850m so as no
    > > > himem pages were available with no effect. Machine still
    > > > crashed.
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Well, I tried backing out the vm changes from pre4, no
    > luck so started disabling things. So far, it seems my
    > firewall script is at fault. I looked through the
    > pre3-pre4 diff and the only change to the nat code is a
    > one-liner.
    >
    > # The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
    > # --------------------------------------------
    > # 03/09/04 laforge@netfilter.org 1.1063.41.4
    > # [NETFILTER]: NAT range calculation fix.
    > #
    > # This patch fixes a logic bug in NAT range calculations, which also
    > # causes a large slowdown when ICMP floods go through NAT.
    > #
    > # Author: Karlis Piesenieks
    > # --------------------------------------------
    > diff -Nru a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c
    > --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c Sun Nov 16 13:41:25 2003
    > +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_core.c Sun Nov 16 13:41:25 2003
    > @@ -157,8 +157,8 @@
    > continue;
    > }
    >
    > - if ((mr->range[i].flags & IP_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED)
    > - && proto->in_range(&newtuple, IP_NAT_MANIP_SRC,
    > + if (!(mr->range[i].flags & IP_NAT_RANGE_PROTO_SPECIFIED)
    > + || proto->in_range(&newtuple, IP_NAT_MANIP_SRC,
    > &mr->range[i].min, &mr->range[i].max))
    > return 1;
    > }
    >
    > Reversing that change has thus far fixed things over here
    > but time will tell. Is there any possible way that that
    > particular change is somehow not smp safe?

    That change is broken, its known to break other setups.

    It has been reverted in the BK tree.


    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.022 / U:30.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site