Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | | Date | Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:17:56 +0900 | | From | Tejun Heo <> | | Subject | Re: -next March 3: Boot failure on x86 (Oops) |
| |
Hello,
On 03/05/2010 03:09 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On 03/05/2010 03:08 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hmmm... this means that on one of the chunks, chunk->list.next was >> NULL (BTW, the disassembly is from unlinked object, right?). The main >> allocation code hasn't seen much change lately. The only changes are, >> >> 22b737f4c75197372d64afc6ed1bccd58c00e549 : just refactoring >> 833af8427be4b217b5bc522f61afdbd3f1d282c2 : possible but isn't very new > > Can you also please try reverting the above two commits?
Sorry about all the fuss but I think this could be it. It looks like I forgot to update need_to_extend logic while adding simultaneous head/tail split for alignment, so the array might be overrun by one entry. Can you please try this one first?
Thanks.
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c index 768419d..f1ed9ea 100644 --- a/mm/percpu.c +++ b/mm/percpu.c @@ -373,11 +373,11 @@ static int pcpu_need_to_extend(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk) { int new_alloc; - if (chunk->map_alloc >= chunk->map_used + 2) + if (chunk->map_alloc >= chunk->map_used + 3) return 0; new_alloc = PCPU_DFL_MAP_ALLOC; - while (new_alloc < chunk->map_used + 2) + while (new_alloc < chunk->map_used + 3) new_alloc *= 2; return new_alloc; -- tejun
|  |