On 05/18/2013 02:27 PM, Michael L. Semon wrote: > On 05/18/2013 01:07 AM, Jeff Liu wrote: > >> Looks our test for 32-bit system is insufficient. There has another bug >> reports regarding 32-bit yesterday: >> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-05/msg00494.html > > I read this and did not chime in because I don't know about the "no > space left on device" error. > > The first issue the customer had, though, was one I had on a 2.8GHz > Pentium 4. The idea of using a tunable to increase vmalloc space made > me think, "What, am I using FreeBSD or something? Why didn't Linux > auto-tune this?" so I dug deeper. [Disclaimer: I use FreeBSD and find > value in it, but it requires at least some sysctl tuning for things that > Linux will tune automatically.] > > Basically, I had vmalloc space to have an environment set up perfectly > in 768 MB of RAM. Then I added another 512 MB, and Linux saw only 896 > MB for lack of highmem support. At that point I enabled highmem > support, Linux decided to auto-tune my vmalloc space down to 128 MB, > which was not enough to handle an xfsdump of a 30 GB device-mapper crypt > partition. The PC, when left alone, could develop those same oops-y > messages while doing incremental xfsdumps overnight, and if left alone > for days, even simple cp commands could cause issues. My resolution was > to use the CONFIG_VMSPLIT_2G kernel option and reduce the things > reported by /proc/vmallocinfo that are vmalloc items. Some ioremap > items in /proc/vmallocinfo were removed where convenient. Despite > warnings on the Internet like "this breaks ELF" and "this breaks binary > modules," I've had no issues with it in the nine months in which the > kernel has operated this way. [Note: I don't use binary modules. For > that matter, only that PC uses modules at all.] Ultimately, I got rid > of the crypts as well, but not before verifying that the above setup did > indeed solve the problem at hand. > > It's only my two cents, one person trying to balance Internet research > against what actually works in testing on one PC. If the solution is > sane sane to you, feel free to forward this story to your customer to > see if anything in it will help. > >> So I'm going to setup a 32-bit test environment for such tests together >> with Michael. > > Excellent! Let me know a little about your test environment and whether > it's a VM or bare metal. VM running via virtual box. The kernel is based on the updated xfs-next tree. root@linux32bit:/home/jeff# uname -a Linux linux32bit 3.10.0-rc1+ #1 SMP Sat May 18 15:30:11 CST 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
