lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    >
    >> ------------[ cut here ]------------
    >> WARNING: at arch/x86/mm/pgtable_32.c:387 pmd_bad+0x44/0x53()
    >> Modules linked in:
    >> Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc3 #14
    >> [<c0424ba5>] warn_on_slowpath+0x41/0x67
    >> [<c0408c5c>] ? native_sched_clock+0x94/0xa6
    >> [<c043f432>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x1a/0x115
    >> [<c04702d4>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x297/0x7e2
    >> [<c063eee6>] ? _spin_unlock+0x1d/0x20
    >> [<c04707f0>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x7b3/0x7e2
    >> [<c04851c1>] ? do_sync_read+0xab/0xe9
    >> [<c0417223>] pmd_bad+0x44/0x53
    >> [<c046f37f>] follow_page+0x8b/0x1f2
    >> [<c0470aa0>] get_user_pages+0x281/0x2ef
    >
    > hm. I suspect some gcc related difference related to the handling of
    > this masking:
    >
    > pmd_val(x) & ~(PAGE_MASK | _PAGE_USER | _PAGE_PSE | _PAGE_NX)
    >
    > versus:
    >
    > pmd_val(x) & (~PAGE_MASK & ~_PAGE_USER)
    >
    > perhaps it will work if you change it to:
    >
    > pmd_val(x) & (~PAGE_MASK & ~_PAGE_USER & ~_PAGE_PSE & ~_PAGE_NX)
    >
    > ?
    >
    > in any case, the commit has to be reverted as it clearly isnt a NOP on
    > your box as it was intended to be. (it should only have made a
    > difference in a rare hugetlbfs case)

    interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the difference goes away.

    I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-03 19:41    [W:0.021 / U:5.456 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site