From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264688AbTD0RhR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:37:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264693AbTD0RhR (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:37:17 -0400 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:33557 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264688AbTD0RhQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:37:16 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427195004.021ead80@pop.gmx.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:54:00 +0200 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: Houston, I think we have a problem Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030427193908.0220bee8@pop.gmx.net> References: <32170000.1051464570@[10.10.2.4]> <5.2.0.9.2.20030427191459.00caed60@pop.gmx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030427090009.01f89870@pop.gmx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030427090009.01f89870@pop.gmx.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20030427191459.00caed60@pop.gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 07:41 PM 4/27/2003 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >At 10:29 AM 4/27/2003 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> >> > To reproduce this 100% of the time, simply compile virgin 2.5.68 >> >> > up/preempt, reduce your ram to 128mb, and using gcc-2.95.3 as to not >> >> > overload the vm, run a make -j30 bzImage in an ext3 partition on a >> >> > P3/500 single ide disk box. No, you don't really need to meet all of >> >> > those restrictions... you'll see the problem on a big hairy chested >> >> > box as well, just not as bad as I see it on my little box. The first >> >> > symptom of the problem you will notice is a complete lack of swap >> >> > activity along with highly improbable quantities of unused ram were >> >> > all those hungry cc1's getting regular CPU feedings. >> >> >> >> Yes, that's why I don't use ext3 ;-) It's known broken, akpm is fixing >> >> it. >> > >> > I'm not at all convinced (must say I wouldn't mind at _all_ being >> > convinced) that it's ext3... that just _seems_ to be worst easily >> > reproducible case for some un-(expletive deleted)-known reason. >> >>Well, that's easy to test. Mount the fs as ext2, and see if it goes away. > > >Sure, btdt very first thing, and that's why I'm not convinced that ext3 is >the core problem. I see "it" in ext2 as well, just less so. P.S. I'm fishing for hints. I'm (severely) hooked by the problem.