--- Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Srihari Vijayaraghavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yup, with CONFIG_SMP=n, I'm unable to reproduce the problem. It's
> > quite stable actually (having completed a dozen kernel compile
> > sessions so far).
[...]
> could you enable CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING - does it spit out any warning
> into the syslog?
Compiled slub with SMP & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. No luck. It still hangs solid
after the second spinlock lockup call trace.
Here's the relevant sections of the kernel logs:
...
Freeing unused kernel memory: 228k freed
BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#1, init/1
lock: ffff81011f5f1100, .magic: ffff8101, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: -1
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff802f326a>] _raw_spin_lock+0x22/0xf6
[<ffffffff8026b2d5>] vma_adjust+0x21c/0x446
[<ffffffff8026b2d5>] vma_adjust+0x21c/0x446
[<ffffffff8026b9d4>] vma_merge+0x10c/0x195
[<ffffffff8026c757>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x3f5/0x794
[<ffffffff803fff0c>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x27
[<ffffffff8020f414>] sys_mmap+0xe5/0x110
[<ffffffff80209dde>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
...
PM: Adding info for No Bus:vcsa1
BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, hostname/369, ffff81011f5f1fc0
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff802f3317>] _raw_spin_lock+0xcf/0xf6
[<ffffffff8026ec9c>] anon_vma_unlink+0x1c/0x68
[<ffffffff8026ec9c>] anon_vma_unlink+0x1c/0x68
[<ffffffff80269aa0>] free_pgtables+0x69/0xc4
[<ffffffff8026ad0e>] exit_mmap+0x91/0xeb
[<ffffffff80228cea>] mmput+0x2c/0x9f
[<ffffffff8022df72>] do_exit+0x22e/0x82e
[<ffffffff8022e5f4>] sys_exit_group+0x0/0xe
[<ffffffff80209dde>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
Surprisingly, with CONFIG_SMP=n, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING produces this with slub
(then hangs solid):
Freeing unused kernel memory: 188k freed
BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#0, init/1, ffff81011e9d3160
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff802eca20>] _raw_spin_lock+0xca/0xe8
[<ffffffff80265d6d>] vma_adjust+0x218/0x442
[<ffffffff80265d6d>] vma_adjust+0x218/0x442
[<ffffffff8026646b>] vma_merge+0x10c/0x195
[<ffffffff802671d5>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x3f5/0x790
[<ffffffff803f6e84>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x27
[<ffffffff8020ead0>] sys_mmap+0xe5/0x110
[<ffffffff80209cce>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
To recap:
1. No problems with slub on CONFIG_SMP=n & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n
2. Problem with slub on CONFIG_SMP=n & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y (perhaps a. some
locking issue when slub is activated or b. something is wrong with 'prove
locking' mechanism when slub is activated or c. something else I don't see)
3. Problem with slub on CONFIG_SMP=y (even without CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y)
Thanks
___________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
-
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/
