Re: assert/crash in __rmqueue() when enabling CONFIG_NUMA

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:

> > > The problem is that nobody regression tests it. So even if you fix it
> > > now it will be likely broken again in a few months.
> > 
> > We can add a box to the test.kernel.org harness easily enough, and
> > it will show up with an eerie red glow.
> 
> Single box is not enough - there are many possible combinations (e.g. 
> Opteron NUMA, IBM NUMA, no NUMA small box, big box with weird mappings 
> etc.). Basically you would need a real tester base.

nah. And the fact that i could boot this on a non-NUMA box already 
unearthed a weakness in the buddy allocator. (it should have much 
clearer asserts about mis-sized zones - it's not the first time we had 
them and they are hard to debug) So consider this a debugging feature. 
It also found other bugs, so even if nobody but me uses it, it's useful.

	ingo
-
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/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux