Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Andy Farkas
Jeff Roberson wrote: > I don't know of any general syncer issues outside of this. Boot single user, run fsck, then halt. -- :{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy Farkas System Administrator Speednet Communications http://www.speednet.com.au/

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Kevin Oberman
er: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 07:53:48PM +0300, Lefteris Chatzibarbas wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I have a problem with kernels, built the last couple of days, where > > > > during shutdown sync

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Jeff Roberson
lo, > > > > > > I have a problem with kernels, built the last couple of days, where > > > during shutdown syncer is "giving up" on buffers. During the next boot > > > all filesystems are checked because of improper dismount. Here follow > > >

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Kevin Oberman
uple of days, where > > during shutdown syncer is "giving up" on buffers. During the next boot > > all filesystems are checked because of improper dismount. Here follow > > the exact messages I get: > > > > Waiting (max 60 seconds) for system process `vnlru&

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Robert Watson
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Tim Robbins wrote: > > Rev.1.3 of ext2fs/fs.h (etc.) abuses B_LOCKED to do little more than > > make the sync() ignore ext2fs's private buffers (its complications are > > mainly to handle the resulting B_LOCKED buffers). It wants to brelse() > > the buffers so that their BUF_

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Bruce Evans
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Tim Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:10:48AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > > > Apparently the bug fixed in ext2fs/fs.h revs 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 (etc.) > > was restored in rev.1.14. I think this is because B_LOCKED buffers > > were ignored in the sync() in boot() and flus

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Bruce Evans
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jan Srzednicki wrote: > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 07:53:48PM +0300, Lefteris Chatzibarbas wrote: > > I have a problem with kernels, built the last couple of days, where > > during shutdown syncer is "giving up" on buffers. During the next boot > &

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Tim Robbins
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:10:48AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > Apparently the bug fixed in ext2fs/fs.h revs 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 (etc.) > was restored in rev.1.14. I think this is because B_LOCKED buffers > were ignored in the sync() in boot() and flushed later when > vfs_unmountall() calls ext2fs_un

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-02 Thread Jan Srzednicki
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 07:53:48PM +0300, Lefteris Chatzibarbas wrote: > Hello, > > I have a problem with kernels, built the last couple of days, where > during shutdown syncer is "giving up" on buffers. During the next boot > all filesystems are checked because of

Re: Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-01 Thread Bruce Evans
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Lefteris Chatzibarbas wrote: > I have a problem with kernels, built the last couple of days, where > during shutdown syncer is "giving up" on buffers. During the next boot > all filesystems are checked because of improper dismount. Here follow > th

Syncer "giving up" on buffers

2003-09-01 Thread Lefteris Chatzibarbas
Hello, I have a problem with kernels, built the last couple of days, where during shutdown syncer is "giving up" on buffers. During the next boot all filesystems are checked because of improper dismount. Here follow the exact messages I get: Waiting (max 60 seconds) for syst

Re: Giving up on buffers

2001-02-25 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > (2) the I/O for the buffer synchronization is initiated but interrupts : > are winding up being disabled by the halt code due to holding Giant : > and not sleeping (more likely). T

Giving up on buffers

2001-02-25 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Matt Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (2) the I/O for the buffer synchronization is initiated but interrupts > are winding up being disabled by the halt code due to holding Giant > and not sleeping (more likely). That all I can think of. We've hit > the interrupt disablement