Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 May 2006 23:14:33 +0100 | From | Andy Whitcroft <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >> "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@mbligh.org> wrote: >> >>> Andrew Morton wrote: >>> >>>> Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The x86_65 panic in LTP has changed a bit. Looks more useful now. >>>>> Possibly just unrelated new stuff. Possibly we got lucky. >>>> >>>> >>>> What are you doing to make this happen? >>> >>> >>> runalltests on LTP >>> >> >> >> We have to get to the bottom of this - there's a shadow over about 500 >> patches and we don't know which. > > > We did do one chop, and concluded it wasn't the x86_64 patches. > >> iirc I tried to reproduce this a couple of weeks back and failed. > > > It looks like a different panic to me. It was a double-fault before. > >> Are you able to narrow it down to a particular LTP test? It was >> mtest01 or >> something like that? Perhaps we can identify a particular command line >> which triggers the fault in a standalone fashion? > > > I can't do much from here - it's running on an IBM machine. Have to beg > Andy, or one of the other IBMers, for help. > >> And why can't I make it happen? Perhaps it's a memory initialisation >> problem, and it only happens to hit in that stage of LTP because that's >> when you started doing page reclaim, or something? > > > It consistently happens on -mm, and not mainline, flicking back and > forth over time. So if you mean h/w mem init, I don't think so. if you > mena some patch in -mm, then yes. > >> Perhaps just try putting a heap of memory pressure on the machine, > >> see what that does? > > Yes, the other stuff might not be swapping. > >> Being unable to reproduce it and not having a theory to go on leaves us >> kinda stuck. Help, please? > > > Yeah, we have a sniff-testing mechanism that works well. However, > drill-down still requires significant amounts of human intervention. > The next gen of stuff should help do more intelligent stuff, but we're > kind of stuck with human-ness for now.
I am sure I got half way through diagnosing this one. We were context switching to a bad thread. I've been meaning to get back to it. Its at the top of my list for the AM.
-apw
- 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/
| |