On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:56:07 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:12:20 -0800
>
> > On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:03:43 +1100
> > Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > That bug was introduced in 2.6.19, with the dirty page tracking patches.
> > > >
> > > > 2.6.18 and earlier used ->private_lock coverage in try_to_free_buffers() to
> > > > prevent it.
> > >
> > > Ohh, right you are, I was looking at 2.6.19 sources. The comments above
> > > ttfb match that as well. Curious that the dirty page patches were allowed
> > > to mess with this...
> >
> > Frankly, those patches scared the crap out of me, specifically because of
> > the delicacy and complexity of the various dirtiness state coherencies.
> > But I just didn't have the bandwidth to go through them with a sufficiently
> > fine toothcomb, sorry.
> >
> > > Anyway that leaves us with the question of why Andrea's database is getting
> > > corrupted. Hopefully he can give us a minimal test-case.
> >
> > It'd odd that stories of pre-2.6.19 BerkeleyDB corruption are now coming
> > out of the woodwork. It's the first I've ever heard of them.
>
> Note that the original rtorrent debian bug report was against 2.6.18
I think that was 2.6.18+debian-added-dirty-page-tracking-patches.
If that memory is correct, I'll assert (and emphasise) that the cause of the
alleged BerkeleyDB corruption is not known at this time.
The post-2.6.19 "fix" might make it go away. But if it does, we do not know
why, and it might still be there, only harder to hit.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
