lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.20.3
    On 3/13/07, Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On 3/13/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
    > > From: "Nish Aravamudan" <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com>
    > > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:58:24 -0700
    > >
    > > > On 3/13/07, Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > On 3/13/07, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
    > > > > > We (the -stable team) are announcing the release of the 2.6.20.3 kernel.
    > > > > > It contains a number of bugfixes and all 2.6.20 users are recommended to
    > > > > > upgrade.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > The diffstat and short summary of the fixes are below.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I'll also be replying to this message with a copy of the patch between
    > > > > > 2.6.20.2 and 2.6.20.3.
    > > > >
    > > > > Compared to 2.6.20.1 (will try 2.6.20.2 as well), I now get:
    > > >
    > > > err, duh -- this is a Sun Ultra 60, debian testing install.
    > >
    > > Figure out if 2.6.20.2 does it too, then please try to git bisect
    > > it down further.
    >
    > Yep, that's the plan, just wanted to make folks aware.
    >
    > > I took a quick look and the two sparc64 commits between 2.6.20.1
    > > and 2.6.20.2 are benign, a fix for E450 interrupts and a kenvctrld
    > > fix which is for a driver for hardware your ultra60 doesn't have. :)
    > >
    > > There is a decent amount of raid and nfs fixes in here, do you
    > > use either?
    >
    > Neither.
    >
    > > Another commit that might be relevant is:
    > >
    > > commit 530b09160744a12450fdacb2b78779c9830a29c8
    > > Author: Aristeu Sergio Rozanski Filho <aristeu.sergio@gmail.com>
    > > Date: Thu Mar 1 19:02:55 2007 -0500
    > >
    > > tty_io: fix race in master pty close/slave pty close path
    > >
    > > Hmmm...
    > >
    > > Please let us know if you can narrow it down further.
    >
    > Building 2.6.20.2 right now, will let you know.

    Ok, truly bizarre, I found that I was not running stock 2.6.20.3, but
    had your small hugetlb patch on top.

    So I went back and patched 2.6.20.1 with your patch, rebooted, got a
    soft lockup. Went back to stock 2.6.20.1 and did not.

    I don't see how your patch (C&P below for reference) could make any
    difference...Especially because no hugepages were in use at the time.
    On patched 2.6.20.1, I was just trying to check if my source tree had
    your patch applied (by `patch -p1 < davem.patch`) and got the
    soft-lockup I saw in 2.6.20.3 with the patch applied. I am going to
    try a clean 2.6.20.3 as well, now.

    diff --git a/arch/sparc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/sparc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
    index 33fd0b2..00677b5 100644
    --- a/arch/sparc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
    +++ b/arch/sparc64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
    @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ void set_huge_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm,
    unsigned long addr,
    if (!pte_present(*ptep) && pte_present(entry))
    mm->context.huge_pte_count++;

    + addr &= HPAGE_MASK;
    for (i = 0; i < (1 << HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER); i++) {
    set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, entry);
    ptep++;
    @@ -266,6 +267,8 @@ pte_t huge_ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct
    *mm, unsigned long addr,
    if (pte_present(entry))
    mm->context.huge_pte_count--;

    + addr &= HPAGE_MASK;
    +
    for (i = 0; i < (1 << HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER); i++) {
    pte_clear(mm, addr, ptep);
    addr += PAGE_SIZE;
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-14 01:31    [W:0.025 / U:65.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site