On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 01:29:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 13:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 12:55 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > > While I've been spinning wheels trying to reproduce that softlockup bug,
> > > On another machine I've been refining my list-walk debug patch.
> > > I added an ugly "ok, the ringbuffer is playing games with lower two
> > > bits" special case.
> > >
> > > But what the hell is going on here ?
> > >
> > > next->prev should be prev (ffff88023c6cdd18), but was 00ffff88023c6cdd.
> > > (next=ffff880243288001).
>
> Ah you didn't handle the bit set case. I just noticed "00" in
> 00ffff88023c6cdd. To test this, you really need to do a "next & ~3", to
> clear the pointer.
>
> Perhaps its best to have just a "raw_list_for_each" that doesn't do any
> check, and have the ring buffer use that instead. The
> rb_head_page_deactivate() is usually followed by an integrity check
> anyway.
I think that's probably the best way forward. The ring buffer code does
so many weird things with list heads that it's almost it's own ADT.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
