lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: problems with 2.5.61-mm1
No, that's a kirq broke no_irq_balance thing (I presume this is NUMA-Q?).
There's a bootflag option to disable it as well, but that's broken too. I
can't fix do it right now, but someone needs to go through and fix all the
disable bits so they work.

--On Saturday, February 15, 2003 00:58:59 -0800 Dave Hansen
<haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I've been beating on various versions of 2.5.59 all day long with no
> problems that I didn't cause. I started testing 2.5.61-mm1 and rand
> into a couple problems right away.
>
> The first I really doubt is -mm specific. I gets _loads_ of these, and
> the e1000 isn't working:
> NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
> e1000: eth0 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex
>
> The e1000 driver hasn't been touched in weeks. Here's my
> /proc/interrupts: http://www.sr71.net/linux/interrupts
> I'm pretty sure we can see the problem here. Almost all interrupts are
> going to CPU0. Is this a summit thing?
>
> The other looks a bit more insidious.
>
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address
> 0000003d c011af77
> *pde = 1cf93001
> Oops: 0002
> CPU: 1
> EIP: 0060:[<c011af77>] Not tainted
> Using defaults from ksymoops -t elf32-i386 -a i386
> EFLAGS: 00010202
> eax: 00000029 ebx: de562870 ecx: dfa85074 edx: 000000e4
> esi: deefc140 edi: cf5227c0 ebp: cf522780 esp: dcad7f08
> ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068
> Stack: cf522780 000000ff df734c80 00000008 00000000 cc266680 00000100
> dfa85074
> deefc100 c6ac3900 c6ac39a4 00000011 00000000 c011b46c 00000011
> c6ac3900
> 00000004 00000286 00001000 cc266680 fffffff4 bffff7a0 00000011
> 00000000
> [<c011b46c>] copy_process+0x3a4/0x902
> [<c011ba1a>] do_fork+0x50/0x166
> [<c0126cca>] sys_rt_sigprocmask+0xdc/0x150
> [<c010792b>] sys_fork+0x37/0x4a
> [<c0109347>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> Code: f0 ff 40 14 89 03 83 c3 04 83 ea 01 75 e1 8b 44 24 20 f0 ff
>
>
>>> EIP; c011af77 <copy_files+18f/2c6> <=====
>
>>> ebx; de562870 <END_OF_CODE+1e0f3f2c/????>
>>> ecx; dfa85074 <END_OF_CODE+1f616730/????>
>>> esi; deefc140 <END_OF_CODE+1ea8d7fc/????>
>>> edi; cf5227c0 <END_OF_CODE+f0b3e7c/????>
>>> ebp; cf522780 <END_OF_CODE+f0b3e3c/????>
>>> esp; dcad7f08 <END_OF_CODE+1c6695c4/????>
>
> Code; c011af77 <copy_files+18f/2c6>
> 00000000 <_EIP>:
> Code; c011af77 <copy_files+18f/2c6> <=====
> 0: f0 ff 40 14 lock incl 0x14(%eax) <=====
> Code; c011af7b <copy_files+193/2c6>
> 4: 89 03 mov %eax,(%ebx)
> Code; c011af7d <copy_files+195/2c6>
> 6: 83 c3 04 add $0x4,%ebx
> Code; c011af80 <copy_files+198/2c6>
> 9: 83 ea 01 sub $0x1,%edx
> Code; c011af83 <copy_files+19b/2c6>
> c: 75 e1 jne ffffffef <_EIP+0xffffffef>
> Code; c011af85 <copy_files+19d/2c6>
> e: 8b 44 24 20 mov 0x20(%esp,1),%eax
> Code; c011af89 <copy_files+1a1/2c6>
> 12: f0 ff 00 lock incl (%eax)
>
> more disassembly
> c011af64: 74 1f je c011af85 <copy_files+0x19d>
> c011af66: 8b 4c 24 1c mov 0x1c(%esp,1),%ecx
> c011af6a: 8b 01 mov (%ecx),%eax
> c011af6c: 83 c1 04 add $0x4,%ecx
> c011af6f: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
> c011af71: 89 4c 24 1c mov %ecx,0x1c(%esp,1)
> c011af75: 74 04 je c011af7b <copy_files+0x193>
> c011af77: f0 ff 40 14 lock incl 0x14(%eax) <========
> c011af7b: 89 03 mov %eax,(%ebx)
> c011af7d: 83 c3 04 add $0x4,%ebx
> c011af80: 83 ea 01 sub $0x1,%edx
> c011af83: 75 e1 jne c011af66 <copy_files+0x17e>
> c011af85: 8b 44 24 20 mov 0x20(%esp,1),%eax
> c011af89: f0 ff 40 04 lock incl 0x4(%eax)
> c011af8d: 8b 45 08 mov 0x8(%ebp),%eax
> c011af90: 89 df mov %ebx,%edi
> c011af92: 2b 44 24 18 sub 0x18(%esp,1),%eax
> c011af96: 8d 34 85 00 00 00 00 lea 0x0(,%eax,4),%esi
>
> I didn't compile with -g, but I have a hunch it is this:
> for (i = open_files; i != 0; i--) {
> struct file *f = *old_fds++;
> if (f)
> get_file(f); <=============
> *new_fds++ = f;
> }
>
> The offset of f_count in struct file is 0x14. The "test %eax,%eax" is
> probably the "if (f)"
> --
> Dave Hansen
> haveblue@us.ibm.com
>
>
>


-
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: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.046 / U:14.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site