Re: Soft lockup by using 256K sizes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello, 

Thanks a lot the explanations. In the v0.18 version used I indeed hit patch #1. The other patches don't seem to (may be in v0.19 ?).

Cheers, Oliver

On Saturday 11 July 2009 03:11:34 ashford@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Oliver,
> 
> > I just tried btrfs with a big blocksize (-n,-l,-s) of 256K. Creating the fs
> > worked Ok. I had to put all three -n,-l,-s options to 256K, otherwise
> > mkfs.btrfs complained. But mounting results in a soft lockup (reproducible).
> > It's not the latest btrfs version however. The details are shown below.
> 
> The problem is that the block size is being set to a value that's larger than
> the memory page size.  This is not supported.  I sent in some validation
> patches for the MKFS command in January, but they may not have been tested &
> integrated yet.
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Peter Ashford
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux