linux-mips-fnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: process lockups

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: process lockups
From: "Houten K.H.C. van (Karel)" <K.H.C.vanHouten@research.kpn.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:51:42 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, K.H.C.vanHouten@research.kpn.com
In-reply-to: "Your message of Tue, 24 Oct 2000 04:47:36 +0200." <20001024044736.B3397@bacchus.dhis.org>
Reply-to: K.H.C.vanHouten@kpn.com
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:22:32AM +0200, Karsten Merker wrote:
> 
> > I am running Kernel 2.4.0-test9 on a DECstation 5000/150. I am
> > experiencing a strange behaviour when having strong I/O-load, such as
> > running a "tar xvf foobar.tgz" with a large archive. After some time of
> > activity the process (in this case tar) is stuck in status "D". There is
> > neither an entry in the syslog nor on the console that would give me a
> > hint what is happening. Is anyone else experiencing this?
> 
> I observe similar stuck processes on Origins - even without massive I/O
> load.  I'm trying to track them but little success aside of fixing a few
> unrelated little bugs.  Do you observe those on your R4k box also?
On my DEC 5000/260 (R4k) I have no stuck processes, but I should mention
that I am running without swap (I have 192Mb RAM).
 
> Another things which I'm observing is that I occasinally can't unmount
> a filesystem.  umount then says the fs is still in use.  Sometimes it's
> at least possible to remount the fs r/o.  Have you also observed this one?
Yes, but only the root FS. I thought I might have to upgrade to a newer
mount program for the 2.4 kernel, or is the system call returning the error?

> > Another thing I see on my 5000/150 (and only there - this is my only
> > R4K-machine, so I do not know whether this is CPU- or machine-type-bound)
> > is "top" going weird, eating lots of CPU cycles and spitting messages
> > "schedule_timeout: wrong timeout value fffbd0b2 from 800900f8; Setting
> > flush to zero for top". I know Florian also has this on his 5000/150.
> > Anyone else with the same behavoiur or any idea about the cause for this?
> 
> Setting flush to zero for <process name> means that the floating point
> approximator is now enabled ;-)
> 
> The schedule_timeout thing is unrelated; I've never heared of it before.

Aside from this I stil get 'bug in get_wchan' messages, but everything
seems to run fine. I hope to test my current kernels on a 5000/150 and
a 3100.

Regards,

-- 
Karel van Houten

----------------------------------------------------------
The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better."
I can't understand why it won't work on my Linux computer. 
----------------------------------------------------------


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>