From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] NFS regression in 2.6.26?, "task blocked for more than 120 seconds" Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:24:05 +0000 Message-ID: <1229279045.3721.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20081017123207.GA14979@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> <1224484046.23068.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1225539927.2221.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1225546878.4390.3.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1227596962.16868.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1227619696.7057.19.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1227620339.9425.99.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1227621434.7057.33.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1227621877.9425.102.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1227737539.31008.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1228090631.7112.11.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <1228169383.20370.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1228565812.10856.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-84U0ymxV8LHT/KQ4Ne6R" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Max Kellermann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gcosta@redhat.com, Grant Coady , "J. Bruce Fields" , Tom Tucker To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.49]:32144 "EHLO mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751001AbYLNSYf (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:24:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1228565812.10856.30.camel-bi+AKbBUZKY6gyzm1THtWbp2dZbC/Bob@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-84U0ymxV8LHT/KQ4Ne6R Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 12:16 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 22:09 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 19:17 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:=20 > > > Can you see if the following 3 patches help? They're against 2.6.28-r= c6, > > > but afaics the problems are pretty much the same on 2.6.26. > >=20 > > Thanks. > >=20 > > The server was actually running 2.6.25.7 but the matching sources have > > since been removed the backports.org so I've reproduce with 2.6.26 and > > now I'll add the patches. >=20 > Just a small progress report. Anecdotally I thought that unpatched > 2.6.26.7 was worse than 2.6.25.7, mostly because it hung twice in the ~1 > day I was running it where previously it was less frequent than once per > day. >=20 > With the patched server the client ran OK for 2.5 days then mysteriously > hung, the logs show none of the normal symptoms and my wife reset it > before I got home so I've no real clue what happened but I'm inclined to > think it was unrelated for now. I'll get back to you in a week or so if > the problem hasn't reoccurred. $ uptime=20 18:15:29 up 9 days, 22 min, 1 user, load average: 0.74, 0.64, 0.46 This is on the problematic client, so it looks like the server side fix has sorted it. Thanks very much Trond. Ian. --=20 Ian Campbell You have only to mumble a few words in church to get married and few words in your sleep to get divorced. --=-84U0ymxV8LHT/KQ4Ne6R Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAklFTzYACgkQM0+0qS9rzVnkfACaA+HfZO4cma2BEN0gLS9ImG2i RvgAmgPRXKARJCHdV94NRENB8eqHQnnO =rzIg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-84U0ymxV8LHT/KQ4Ne6R--