From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272567AbTHSSKO (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:10:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272521AbTHSSJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:09:05 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:42761 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272335AbTHSSAg (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:00:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:00:28 -0700 From: Mike Fedyk To: Stephan von Krawczynski Cc: Alan Cox , andrea@suse.de, green@namesys.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mason@suse.com Subject: Re: 2.4.22-pre lockups (now decoded oops for pre10) Message-ID: <20030819180028.GB19465@matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Stephan von Krawczynski , Alan Cox , andrea@suse.de, green@namesys.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mason@suse.com References: <20030813125509.360c58fb.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030813145940.GC26998@namesys.com> <20030813171224.2a13b97f.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030813153009.GA27209@namesys.com> <20030819011208.GK10320@matchmail.com> <20030819091243.007acac0.skraw@ithnet.com> <1061298621.30565.31.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030819161832.2a0bae58.skraw@ithnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030819161832.2a0bae58.skraw@ithnet.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:18:32PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > On 19 Aug 2003 14:10:22 +0100 > Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Maw, 2003-08-19 at 08:12, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > > Are you saying that one CPU can't saturate the memory bus? Or maybe > > > > we're hitting something on the CPU bus, or just that SMP will change the > > > > timings and stress things differently? Or that if memtest doesn't test > > > > from the second CPU then it could be a faulty cpu/L2? > > > > > > Well, if memtest does not use a second available CPU then probably we > > > should ask the author about this... > > > > I'm sure he'd give you a quote for adding SMP support if you asked. > > Well, actually I don't want to burn down his time as long as I don't see a need > for it. Since I am pretty confident to make the box work in SMP under 2.4.20 a > memtest will most certainly not give any additional information, be it running > UP or SMP. > Instead I will invest another day and convert the whole system back to > reiserfs, because the ext3 fs cannot be used under 2.4.20 - I don't know why. > Additionally reiserfs is better for testing possible patches because it crashes > in much shorter time than ext3 setup. > 2.4.20 setup gives me a simple testcase to prove people right or wrong that are > talking about a hardware issue. Are you doing a lot of directory operations, or is it mostly just large amounts of data transfering over NFS? The reason why I ask, is that I know that at least JFS and possibly XFS uses trees for their directory structures, and might show similar problems (with its large use of trees), if you did a lot of directory operations on the other filesystems. Then maybe it could rule out reiserfs. Though it still did show up on ext3...