[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701230846410.8978@p34.internal.lan>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:46:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
xfs@....sgi.com, Alan Piszcz <ap@...arrain.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.19.2 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5)
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >
> >> Disabling pre-emption on critical and/or server machines seems to be a good
> >> idea in the first place. IMHO anyway.. ;)
> >
> > 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!
>
> This is not a reason. The reason is that preemption usually works worse
> on servers, esp. high-loaded servers - the more often you interrupt a
> (kernel) work, the more nedleess context switches you'll have, and the
> more slow the whole thing works.
>
> Another point is that with preemption enabled, we have more chances to
> hit one or another bug somewhere. Those bugs should be found and fixed
> for sure, but important servers/data isn't a place usually for bughunting.
>
> /mjt
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
Thanks for the update/info.
Justin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists