Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:57:35 +0100 (CET) | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: Signal 11 - the continuing saga |
| |
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > Not in my test tree. Same fault, and same trace leading up to it. no > > Ok. > > It definitely looks like a swapoff() problem. > > Have you ever seen the behaviour without running swapoff?
No.
> Also, can you re-create it without running swapon() (if it's something > like a lost dirty bit, it should be possible to trigger even without the > swapon, and I'd like to hear if that can happen - if it only happens with > swapon() and you can't trigger it with just a swapoff() it might be a > question of re-using some swap file stuff and delaying the writeout or > whatever).
I'll try loading up swap, swapoff and then doing jobs that fit in ram.
(hmm.. what about inactive_clean list when you do swapoff.. might there be pages sitting there that are [were] swap cache? reclaim_page=kaboom?)
-Mike
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |