From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265071AbTFCQRb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:17:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265081AbTFCQRb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:17:31 -0400 Received: from imsantv30.netvigator.com ([210.87.253.77]:23520 "EHLO imsantv30.netvigator.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265071AbTFCQRa (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:17:30 -0400 From: Michael Frank To: Marcelo Tosatti , Marc Wilson Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.21-rc6 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 00:30:27 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: lkml References: <20030529052425.GA1566@moonkingdom.net> <20030529055735.GB1566@moonkingdom.net> In-Reply-To: X-OS: GNU/Linux 2.5.70 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306040030.27640.mflt1@micrologica.com.hk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 04 June 2003 00:02, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2003, Marc Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 06:34:48AM +0100, Riley Williams wrote: > > > The basic problem there is that any mail client needs to know > > > just how many messages are in a particular folder to handle that > > > folder, and the only way to do this is to count them all. That's > > > what takes the time when one opens a large folder. > > > > No, the basic problem there is that the kernel is deadlocking. Read the > > VERY long thread for the details. > > > > I think I have enough on the ball to be able to tell the difference > > between mutt opening a folder and counting messages, with a counter and > > percentage indicator advancing, and mutt sitting there deadlocked with > > the HD activity light stuck on and all the rest of X stuck tight. > > > > And it just happened again, so -rc6 is no sure fix. What did y'all that > > reported the problem had gone away do, patch -rc4 with the akpm patches? > > ^_^ > > Ok, so you can reproduce the hangs reliably EVEN with -rc6, Marc? -rc6 is better - comparable to 2.4.18 in what I have seen with my script. After the long obscure problems since 2.4.19x, -rc6 could use serious stress-testing. User level testing is not sufficient here - it's just like playing roulette. By serious stress-testing I mean: Everone testing comes up with one dedicated "tough test" which _must_ be reproducible (program, script) along his line of expertise/application. Two or more of these independent tests are run in combination. This method should increase the coverage drastically. Regards Michael