On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:48:48PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> afacit that two-year-old, totally-different patch has nothing to do with my >>> repeatedly-asked question. It appears to be consolidating three separate >>> quicklist allocators into one common implementation. >>> In an attempt to answer my own question (and hence to justify the retention >>> of this custom allocator) I did this: >> [... patch changing allocator alloc()/free() to bare page allocations ...] >>> but it crashes early in the page allocator (i386) and I don't see why. It >>> makes me wonder if we have a use-after-free which is hidden by the presence >>> of the quicklist buffering or something.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:29:20AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Sorry I flubbed the first message. Anyway this does mean something is >> seriously wrong and needs to be debugged. Looking into it now. On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:57:07AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > I know what's happening. I just need to catch the culprit. Are you tripping the BUG_ON() in include/linux/mm.h:256 with CONFIG_DEBUG_VM set? -- wli - 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/
