On Mon, Jul 16 2007, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> On mån, 2007-07-16 at 19:29 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 16 2007, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > On 07/15/2007 11:20 AM, Ian Kumlien wrote:
> > > > I had emerge --sync failing several times...
> > > >
> > > > So i checked dmesg and found some info, attached further down.
> > > > This is a old VIA C3 machine with one disk, it's been running most
> > > > kernels in the 2.6.x series with no problems until now.
> > > >
> > > > PS. Don't forget to CC me
> > > > DS.
> > > >
> > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ea86ac54
> > > > printing eip:
> > > > c022dfec
> > > > *pde = 00000000
> > > > Oops: 0000 [#1]
> > > > Modules linked in: eeprom i2c_viapro vt8231 i2c_isa skge
> > > > CPU: 0
> > > > EIP: 0060:[<c022dfec>] Not tainted VLI
> > > > EFLAGS: 00010082 (2.6.22.1 #26)
> > > > EIP is at as_can_break_anticipation+0xc/0x190
> > > > eax: dfcdaba0 ebx: dfcdaba0 ecx: 0035ff95 edx: cb296844
> > > > esi: cb296844 edi: dfcdaba0 ebp: 00000000 esp: ceff6a70
> > > > ds: 007b es: 007b fs: 0000 gs: 0033 ss: 0068
> > > > Process rsync (pid: 1667, ti=ceff6000 task=d59cf5b0 task.ti=ceff6000)
> > > > Stack: cb296844 00000001 cb296844 dfcdaba0 00000000 c022efc8 cb296844
> > > > 00000000
> > > > dfcffb9c c0227a76 dfcffb9c 00000000 c016e96e cb296844 00000000
> > > > dfcffb9c
> > > > 00000000 c022af64 00000000 dfcffb9c 00000008 00000000 08ff6b30
> > > > c04d1ec0
> > > > Call Trace:
> > > > [<c022efc8>] as_add_request+0xa8/0xc0
> > > > [<c0227a76>] elv_insert+0xa6/0x150
> > > > [<c016e96e>] bio_phys_segments+0xe/0x20
> > > > [<c022af64>] __make_request+0x384/0x490
> > > > [<c02add1e>] ide_do_request+0x6ee/0x890
> > > > [<c02294ab>] generic_make_request+0x18b/0x1c0
> > > > [<c022b596>] submit_bio+0xa6/0xb0
> > > > [<c013b7b8>] mempool_alloc+0x28/0xa0
> > > > [<c016bb66>] __find_get_block+0xf6/0x130
> > > > [<c016e0bc>] bio_alloc_bioset+0x8c/0xf0
> > > > [<c016b647>] submit_bh+0xb7/0xe0
> > > > [<c016c1f8>] ll_rw_block+0x78/0x90
> > > > [<c019c85d>] search_by_key+0xdd/0xd20
> > > > [<c016c201>] ll_rw_block+0x81/0x90
> > > > [<c011f190>] irq_exit+0x40/0x60
> > > > [<c01066e4>] do_IRQ+0x94/0xb0
> > > > [<c0104bc3>] common_interrupt+0x23/0x30
> > > > [<c018beca>] reiserfs_read_locked_inode+0x6a/0x490
> > > > [<c018e580>] reiserfs_find_actor+0x0/0x20
> > > > [<c018c33b>] reiserfs_iget+0x4b/0x80
> > > > [<c018e570>] reiserfs_init_locked_inode+0x0/0x10
> > > > [<c0189824>] reiserfs_lookup+0xa4/0xf0
> > > > [<c0157b03>] do_lookup+0xa3/0x140
> > > > [<c0159265>] __link_path_walk+0x615/0xa20
> > > > [<c0168a18>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x28/0x150
> > > > [<c01631c1>] mntput_no_expire+0x11/0x50
> > > > [<c01596b2>] link_path_walk+0x42/0xb0
> > > > [<c0159960>] do_path_lookup+0x130/0x150
> > > > [<c015a190>] __user_walk_fd+0x30/0x50
> > > > [<c0154766>] vfs_lstat_fd+0x16/0x40
> > > > [<c01547df>] sys_lstat64+0xf/0x30
> > > > [<c0103c42>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> > > > =======================
> > >
> > > static int as_can_break_anticipation(struct as_data *ad, struct request *rq)
> > > {
> > > struct io_context *ioc;
> > > struct as_io_context *aic;
> > >
> > > ioc = ad->io_context; <======== ad is bogus
> > > BUG_ON(!ioc);
> > >
> > >
> > > Call chain is:
> > >
> > > as_add_request
> > > as_update_rq:
> > > if (ad->antic_status == ANTIC_WAIT_REQ
> > > || ad->antic_status == ANTIC_WAIT_NEXT) {
> > > if (as_can_break_anticipation(ad, rq))
> > > as_antic_stop(ad);
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > So somehow 'ad' became invalid between the time ad->antic_status was
> > > checked and as_can_break_anticipation() tried to access ad->io_context?
> >
> > That's impossible, ad is persistent unless the io scheduler is attempted
> > removed. Did you fiddle with switching io schedulers while this
> > happened? If not, then something corrupted your memory. And I'm not
> > aware of any io scheduler switching bugs, so the oops would still be
> > highly suspect if so.
>
> I wasn't fiddling with the scheduler, it's quite happily been running AS
> for quite some time.
OK, that rules that out then. Then your oops looks very much like
hardware trouble. Perhaps a border liner PSU? Just an idea.
> Actually it ran AS for the entire 2.6.21 and 2.6.20 life cycles.
There's essentially only one change in AS between 2.6.21 and 2.6.22, and
that is converting a jiffes vs msec error. So no real code change.
> > You write emerge - are you using an experimental compiler? Or did you
> > recently change hardware? Is it warmer than usual?
>
> No change in hardware, no change in compiler either.
>
> gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 (Gentoo 4.1.2)
>
> Which is the same compiler that compiled 2.6.21 afair.
>
> It's been more humid, but not warmer... Were talking about a cpu that
> usually idles at 17 deg =)
Probably not the heat, then.
> There might however have been more io load, right now it's 220
> connections to my webserver and it's 5 days since my friend released the
> mix they are downloading.
>
> (I'm preparing to switch it all over to a core2duo with mirrored disks,
> which is a wee bit more suited to this kind of load)
>
> Sent data: 8062.27 Mb (4620.55 kbit/s)
> Requests: 56284 (235/min)
>
> Webserver uptime 9h
My gut says that this is the hardware falling over, for whatever reason.
Since it's otherwise stable, it could be something marginal pushing it
over. Like your higher load (be it CPU, or disk).
You could try and boot with the noop IO scheduler and see if it still
oopses. Not sure would else to suggest, your box will likely pass
memtest just fine.
--
Jens Axboe
-
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]
