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/
[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]
