On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:54:46 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:24:13 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Andrew, > >> > >> The 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 kernel panic while bootup with bootup message > > > > Can you please bisect it? I'd start with git-x86. These: > > > > ssb-add-ssb_pcihost_set_power_state-function.patch > > b44-power-down-phy-when-interface-down.patch > > drivers-net-wireless-iwlwifi-iwl-3945c-fix-printk-warning.patch > > drivers-net-wireless-iwlwifi-iwl-4965c-fix-printk-warning.patch > > > > drivers-net-wireless-rt2x00-rt2x00usbc-fix-uninitialized-var-warning.patch > > -> git-ipwireless_cs.patch > > > The kernel boots up while patches applied till here and fails with the next > check point. > of iommu-sg-merging-add-device_dma_parameters-structure.patch. > > > # > > revert-kvm-stuff-to-make-git-x86-apply.patch > > git-x86.patch > > git-x86-fixup.patch > > git-x86-fixup-2.patch > > acpi-default-unmap-fixpatch.patch > > git-x86-vs-pm-acquire-device-locks-on-suspend-rev-3.patch > > git-x86-fix-doubly-merged-patch.patch > > pci-dont-load-acpi_php-when-acpi-is-disabled.patch > > pci-dont-load-acpi_php-when-acpi-is-disabled-fix.patch > > # > > #X86-ANDI-START > > #X86-ANDI-END > > # > > # > > -> iommu-sg-merging-add-device_dma_parameters-structure.patch > > > > would be suitable test points. > > > >> Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 270 stepping 02 > >> Unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000000000004a78 RIP: > >> [<ffffffff8026f966>] __alloc_pages+0x40/0x31e > >> PGD 0 > >> Oops: 0000 [1] SMP > >> last sysfs file: > >> CPU 0 > >> Modules linked in: > >> Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24-rc8-mm1-autotest #1 > >> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8026f966>] [<ffffffff8026f966>] > >> __alloc_pages+0x40/0x31e > >> RSP: 0000:ffff81003f9b9c60 EFLAGS: 00010246 > >> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000002 > >> RDX: 0000000000004a70 RSI: 0000000000000605 RDI: ffffffff805a6f66 > >> RBP: 00000000000000d0 R08: 00380800000000c0 R09: 000000000003db89 > >> R10: ffffe20000fe6880 R11: ffffffff806287b0 R12: 0000000000004a70 > >> R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000286 R15: ffff81003f9b6000 > >> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff80664000(0000) > >> knlGS:0000000000000000 > >> CS: 0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b > >> CR2: 0000000000004a78 CR3: 0000000000201000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 > >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > >> Process swapper (pid: 1, threadinfo ffff81003f9b8000, task > >> ffff81003f9b6000) > >> Stack: 000000000000c0d0 0000001000000000 ffffffff8027574f ffff81000000e5c8 > >> 000000000000c0d0 ffffffff8026f320 ffff81003f9b9c88 0000000000000000 > >> 0000000000000000 ffffffff807fac90 ffffffff807fac90 0000000000000286 > >> Call Trace: > >> [<ffffffff8027574f>] ? zone_statistics+0x3f/0x97 > >> [<ffffffff8026f320>] ? get_page_from_freelist+0x463/0x5b5 > >> [<ffffffff8028d7b8>] ? new_slab+0x10e/0x261 > >> [<ffffffff8028d92b>] ? get_new_slab+0x20/0xaa > >> [<ffffffff8028dad8>] ? __slab_alloc+0x123/0x182 > >> [<ffffffff8026e5a1>] ? process_zones+0x79/0x15e > >> [<ffffffff8028db73>] ? kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x3c/0x70 > >> [<ffffffff8026e5a1>] ? process_zones+0x79/0x15e > >> [<ffffffff804f15b9>] ? _spin_lock_irqsave+0x9/0xe > >> [<ffffffff8026e6b9>] ? pageset_cpuup_callback+0x33/0x91 > >> [<ffffffff804f37b9>] ? notifier_call_chain+0x29/0x56 > >> [<ffffffff80254b09>] ? _cpu_up+0x68/0x101 > >> [<ffffffff80254bf6>] ? cpu_up+0x54/0x61 > >> [<ffffffff808a4581>] ? kernel_init+0xbf/0x2ef > >> [<ffffffff804f15a1>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x9/0xc > >> [<ffffffff8020cc08>] ? child_rip+0xa/0x12 > >> [<ffffffff808a44c2>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x2ef > >> [<ffffffff8020cbfe>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x12 > > > > Who added these question marks to the backtrace output and what are they > > for? > > > >> Code: 83 ec 38 65 4c 8b 3c 25 00 00 00 00 83 e0 10 89 44 24 0c 74 16 be 05 > >> 06 00 00 48 c7 c7 66 6f 5a 80 e8 a9 f4 fb ff e8 20 05 28 00 <49> 83 7c 24 > >> 08 00 49 8d 44 24 08 48 89 44 24 18 75 1a 48 c7 44 > >> RIP [<ffffffff8026f966>] __alloc_pages+0x40/0x31e > >> RSP <ffff81003f9b9c60> > >> CR2: 0000000000004a78 There is no way in which iommu-sg-merging-add-device_dma_parameters-structure.patch can cause __alloc_pages to crash. I'd be suspecting some weird interaction between this patch's changes to kernel layout and the real bug. I don't know what the real bug is though. Perhaps x86_64 memory enumeration or NUMA initialisation problems. Does it look familar to anyone? -- 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/
