Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754433Ab1DRS27 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:28:59 -0400 Received: from mx2.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.31]:40715 "EHLO mx2.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751621Ab1DRS24 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:28:56 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1303151334-01de284cf8160090001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4DAC82E6.3020809@fusionio.com> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:28:54 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Van Assche CC: Linus Torvalds , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Maciej Rutecki , Florian Mickler , Neil Brown Subject: Re: [Bug #32982] Kernel locks up a few minutes after boot References: <_H4l51C1wXN.A.yDC.yGuqNB@chimera> <4DAC2429.5000105@fusionio.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [Bug #32982] Kernel locks up a few minutes after boot In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1303151334 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.181:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.61237 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 996 Lines: 28 On 2011-04-18 20:21, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> Bart, can you try and pull: >> >> git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git for-linus >> >> into Linus' tree and see if that works? This has, among other things, >> Neils fixes for MD. > > md seems to work stable with the resulting tree, but it looks there is OK, that's the most important bit. > a performance regression in the block layer not related to the md > issue. If I run a small block IOPS test on a block device created by > ib_srp (NOOP scheduler) I see about 11% less IOPS than with 2.6.38.3 > (155.000 IOPS with 2.6.38.3 and 140.000 IOPS with 2.6.39-rc3+). That's not good. What's the test case? -- Jens Axboe -- 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/