On Tue, 22 May 2007, Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote: > --- 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)
You've made no mention of trying the patch I sent yesterday, or better, the patch Christoph replied with to replace it. Please clarify whether you're getting the above after applying one of those patches - thanks. Hugh - 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/
