Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:59:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
       Alan Piszcz <ap@solarrain.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5)
In-Reply-To: <45B5ECAA.6000100@tls.msk.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701230657380.8978@p34.internal.lan>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701200718290.29223@p34.internal.lan>
 <45B5261B.1050104@redhat.com> <17845.13256.284461.992275@notabene.brown>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701230556050.8978@p34.internal.lan> <45B5ECAA.6000100@tls.msk.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1037
Lines: 34


On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:

> Justin Piszcz wrote:
> []
> > Is this a bug that can or will be fixed or should I disable pre-emption on 
> > critical and/or server machines?
> 
> Disabling pre-emption on critical and/or server machines seems to be a good
> idea in the first place.  IMHO anyway.. ;)
> 
> /mjt
> 

So for a server system, the following options should be as follows:

Preemption Model (No Forced Preemption (Server))  --->
[ ] Preempt The Big Kernel Lock

Also, my mobo has HPET timer support in the BIOS, is there any reason to 
use this on a server? I do run X on it via the Intel 965 chipset video.

So bottom line is make sure not to use preemption on servers or else you 
will get weird spinlock/deadlocks on RAID devices--GOOD To know!

Thanks!

Justin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/