| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200909241426.49947.bzolnier@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:26:49 +0200 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> To: odie@...aau.dk Cc: whansard@...global.net, "Robert Hancock" <hancockrwd@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Elias Oltmanns" <eo@...ensachen.de> Subject: Re: disk speed regression kernel 2.6.29 and after Hi, On Thursday 24 September 2009 09:44:47 odie@...aau.dk wrote: > (Bart, a commit by you might be involved here, please see below.) > > >> I had been using an old 2.6.22 kernel on my machine, and I often backup > >> one partition of my main hard drive to a partition on a second hard > >> drive. The main hard drive is sata 640 gigs, and the second is a pata > >> 320 gig. copying this partition from one drive to the other with dd > >> takes about 3 minutes and 30 seconds. When I installed kernel 2.6.30, > >> and 2.6.31, the time took 9 minutes and 20 seconds. I decided to go to > >> the trouble of compiling all the kernels between, and kernels > >> 2.6.22-2.6.28 all do the operation in about 3 minutes and 30 seconds. > >> 2.6.29- newer all take about 9 minutes and 20 seconds. The partition is > >> 16 gigs. each drive seems to be as fast as before otherwise, it's just > >> much slower copying from one drive to another, which I do very often. > >> This is an nforce 3 based motherboard, amd southbridge, i think, with 4 > >> gigs of ram, athlon 64x2. 32 bit kernel. has anyone heard of this problem? > >> I currently have 3 hard drives hooked up. > >> a 200 gig on a promise controller, > >> a 320 gig on the amd pata? > >> a 640 sata on the nv i think. > >> The motherboard is a Asrock-AM2NF3-VSTA > >> copying this partition with dd or cat or schily's dd between any of these 3 > >> different hard drives takes different times depending on the speed of > >> the drive with > >> kernels 2.6.22-2.6.28, but takes about 9 minutes and 30 seconds on any > >> of the drives > >> with the kernels 2.6.29 and after. > > >> Can you post the dmesg output from bootup on both the good and bad kernels? > > So, the good and bad below are a result of a git bisect run? > > And did you notice these warnings? > > > good > > Linux version 2.6.28-04985-gebdab07 (root@....com) (gcc version > > 4.4.1 (GCC) ) #14 SMP Wed Sep 23 21:12:50 CDT 2009 > [...] > > > Freeing unused kernel memory: 284k freed > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: sda5: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -107167201[18060 > > 33348 0xf6c5325c UNKNOWN] not found > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: sda5: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -107167201[18060 > > 113891 0xf6c55758 UNKNOWN] not found > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: sda5: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness > > -107167201[117144 365484 0xf6c56188 UNKNOWN] not found > > Hmm, this looks like a reiserfs problem that was present for a while between > 2.6.28 and 2.6.29-rc1 [1]. You'd probably like to run fsck. > > > ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team > > hdb: UDMA/33 mode selected > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > WARNING: at fs/sysfs/dir.c:462 sysfs_add_one+0x3c/0x50() > > Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. > > sysfs: duplicate filename 'audio' can not be created > > Modules linked in: sound(+) ipt_LOG ip_tables x_tables > > Pid: 1666, comm: modprobe Not tainted 2.6.28-04985-gebdab07 #14 > > Call Trace: > > [<c01406b2>] warn_slowpath+0x82/0xc0 > > [<c050a8fe>] schedule+0x21e/0x780 > > [<c012eb77>] xapic_wait_icr_idle+0x17/0x20 > > [<c035ca84>] idr_get_empty_slot+0xe4/0x260 > > [<c035cc79>] ida_get_new_above+0x79/0x1b0 > > [<c01cfcd0>] sysfs_ilookup_test+0x0/0x10 > > [<c01cfff1>] sysfs_find_dirent+0x21/0x30 > > [<c01d012d>] __sysfs_add_one+0x1d/0xe0 > > [<c019e8a6>] ilookup5+0x36/0x40 > > [<c01d022c>] sysfs_add_one+0x3c/0x50 > > [<c01d07d8>] create_dir+0x48/0x90 > > [<c01d0849>] sysfs_create_dir+0x29/0x40 > > [<c035d75f>] kobject_get+0xf/0x20 > > [<c035d853>] kobject_add_internal+0x83/0x1d0 > > [<c035da2a>] kobject_set_name_vargs+0x3a/0x50 > > [<c035da5e>] kobject_add_varg+0x1e/0x60 > > [<c035dafd>] kobject_add+0x2d/0x60 > > [<c035d75f>] kobject_get+0xf/0x20 > > [<c03c9a0a>] device_add+0xca/0x600 > > [<c035d515>] kobject_init+0x25/0xa0 > > [<c03c9fdb>] device_create_vargs+0x8b/0xd0 > > [<c03ca04b>] device_create+0x2b/0x30 > > [<f85ff0a5>] oss_init+0xa5/0x149 [sound] > > [<c0101123>] do_one_initcall+0x33/0x170 > > [<f85ff000>] oss_init+0x0/0x149 [sound] > > [<c016345b>] sys_init_module+0x8b/0x1b0 > > [<c018b688>] sys_close+0x58/0x90 > > [<c011c26e>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb > > ---[ end trace c45370bb6aa94452 ]--- > > kobject_add_internal failed for audio with -EEXIST, don't try to > > register things with the same name in the same directory. > > Pid: 1666, comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 2.6.28-04985-gebdab07 #14 > > Call Trace: > > [<c035d902>] kobject_add_internal+0x132/0x1d0 > > [<c035dafd>] kobject_add+0x2d/0x60 > > [<c035d75f>] kobject_get+0xf/0x20 > > [<c03c9a0a>] device_add+0xca/0x600 > > [<c035d515>] kobject_init+0x25/0xa0 > > [<c03c9fdb>] device_create_vargs+0x8b/0xd0 > > [<c03ca04b>] device_create+0x2b/0x30 > > [<f85ff0a5>] oss_init+0xa5/0x149 [sound] > > [<c0101123>] do_one_initcall+0x33/0x170 > > [<f85ff000>] oss_init+0x0/0x149 [sound] > > [<c016345b>] sys_init_module+0x8b/0x1b0 > > [<c018b688>] sys_close+0x58/0x90 > > [<c011c26e>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb > > hdc: UDMA/33 mode selected > > Driver 'sr' needs updating - please use bus_type methods > > hdd: UDMA/66 mode selected > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness -1071672013 > > ReiserFS: sda5: warning: vs-500: unknown uniqueness > > -107167201[117144 365494 0xf6ca87d8 UNKNOWN] not found > > w83627ehf: Found W83627EHG chip at 0x290 > > warning: process `update' used the obsolete bdflush system call > > Fix your initscripts? > > warning: process `update' used the obsolete bdflush system call > > Fix your initscripts? > > These warnings are a consequence of the problem above I believe. I don't > know whether they have affected your bisect run, you should really apply > the patch in [1] and rerun the tests. > > > > > bad > > > > Linux version 2.6.28-04986-g295f000 (root@....com) (gcc version > > 4.4.1 (GCC) ) #13 SMP Wed Sep 23 21:08:03 CDT 2009 > > So if your bisect is correct, then 295f000 > (ide: don't execute the next queued command from the hard-IRQ context (v2)) > is faulty. > > Bart, any ideas or would you like a rerun with the reiserfs patch in place > by Will? > > [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/12/471 I don't see how could commit 295f00 be the guilty one here. I'm suspecting that bisection went wrong at some point (easy to verify by checking if commit 295f00^1 is also bad). PS Will, it would be useful to try libata first and possibly rule out PATA out of the picture completely. -- 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