On Wed, 23 May 2007, Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote: > > and then try to boot without slub_debug. > > I guess you mean with CONFIG_SLUB_CONFIG=y? If so, I built another kernel with > CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y (plus all of the above) & tested it. It panics by default, > but with slub_nomerge it works just fine (tested under moderate load). > > (the panic message produced by CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y was the exact same call > trace as my very first email in this email thread with slightly different > address on a couple of functions, but rest remains the same)
Ahh... At least we are getting to the original problem. > I'm personally very happy that slub works stably without slub debug options, > because that's what I'd run in a production env. Thanks to your patch, slub is > quite stable without the slub debug for me :-)). But it'd to nice to have a > working slub debug for test env., as you'd undoubtedly be aware of, of course > :-). Just my humble opinion. > > > If that fails then boot with slub_nomerge So lockdep has issues with slab merging? If locks are tracking within slabs then I imagine that lockdep gets confused if we put them together. > Yup, I had to use slub_nomerge; without that CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y kernel > panics. (I haven't tested the UP case though. I did try nosmp & maxcpus=1, but > they had no effect on the panic. Do you want me to test UP case for > CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y without slub_nomerge?) Yes. - 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/
