Solofo.Ramangalahy@xxxxxxxx wrote: > I have not been able to reproduce it on 2.6.26-rc3 and > 2.6.25-14.fc9.x86_64 (fedora 9 kernel). > > besides, on 2.6.25.4, it was much more longer than > > # /home/nick/src/fsstress/fsstress -d /mnt2/fsstress -l 10 -n 100 -p 20 > to reproduce (I also changed -n and -p). > > Could you confirm that you still easily see the soft lockups? > If yes, could you attach your x86-64 .config? > (On my side, I have been using defconfig + ext4dev: > > CONFIG_EXT4DEV_FS=m > > CONFIG_EXT4DEV_FS_XATTR=y > > CONFIG_EXT4DEV_FS_POSIX_ACL=y > > CONFIG_EXT4DEV_FS_SECURITY=y > ) No, I am not seeing them any more: it does seem to be a config problem. I got my original config from the distro that I was running on the box at the time (RHEL5.1), doing "make oldconfig" and adding ext4dev. I was trying to get 2.6.26-rc3 going with the same method, but I was running into severe problems, even without ext4 in the picture (soft lockups whenever any significant disk IO was done: since the configuration included a readahead init script for optimization, the machine was getting hung late in the boot.) So I got a config file from a colleague's setup and that got me past the 2.6.26-rc3 problem. I also had no problem with ext4 on top of that. I went back and tried a similar config file on 2.6.25.3 and that also did not show the problem. So it seems to be entirely caused by my bad choice of a config file. As a matter of good practice, is defconfig+ext4dev the best way of producing a kernel for ext4 testing purposes? Are there any settings that should be added/delete/modified from the default? Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
