Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 May 2008 10:54:28 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 - kernel bug while bootup at __alloc_pages_internal () on x86_64 |
| |
On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:44:55 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:51:36 +0530 > Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:54:46 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Andrew, > > >> > > >> The 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 kernel panic's while bootup on the x86_64 machine. > > >> > > >> > > >> BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000000000001e08 > > >> IP: [<ffffffff8026ac60>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x80/0x470 > > >> PGD 0 > > >> Oops: 0000 [1] SMP > > >> last sysfs file: > > >> CPU 31 > > >> Modules linked in: > > >> Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.26-rc2-mm1-autotest #1 > > >> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8026ac60>] [<ffffffff8026ac60>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x80/0x470 > > >> RSP: 0018:ffff810bf9dbdbc0 EFLAGS: 00010202 > > >> RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: ffff810bef4786c0 RCX: 0000000000000001 > > >> RDX: 0000000000001e00 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000001020 > > >> RBP: ffff810bf9dbb6d0 R08: 0000000000001020 R09: 0000000000000000 > > >> R10: 0000000000000008 R11: ffffffff8046d130 R12: 0000000000001020 > > >> R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 0000000000001e00 R15: ffff810bf8d29878 > > >> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff810bf916dec0(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > >> CS: 0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b > > >> CR2: 0000000000001e08 CR3: 0000000000201000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 > > >> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > > >> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > > >> Process swapper (pid: 1, threadinfo ffff810bf9dbc000, task ffff810bf9dbb6d0) > > >> Stack: 0002102000000000 0000000000000002 0000000000000000 0000000200000000 > > >> 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 > > >> 0000000000000000 ffff810bef4786c0 0000000000001020 ffffffffffffffff > > >> Call Trace: > > >> [<ffffffff802112e9>] dma_alloc_coherent+0xa9/0x280 > > >> [<ffffffff804e8c9e>] tg3_init_one+0xa3e/0x15e0 > > >> [<ffffffff8028d0e4>] alternate_node_alloc+0x84/0xd0 > > >> [<ffffffff802286fc>] task_rq_lock+0x4c/0x90 > > >> [<ffffffff8022de62>] set_cpus_allowed_ptr+0x72/0xf0 > > >> [<ffffffff802e12fb>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x1b/0x210 > > >> [<ffffffff802e0f99>] sysfs_find_dirent+0x29/0x40 > > >> [<ffffffff8036cc34>] pci_device_probe+0xe4/0x130 > > >> [<ffffffff803bfc26>] driver_probe_device+0x96/0x1a0 > > >> [<ffffffff803bfdb9>] __driver_attach+0x89/0x90 > > >> [<ffffffff803bfd30>] __driver_attach+0x0/0x90 > > >> [<ffffffff803bf29d>] bus_for_each_dev+0x4d/0x80 > > >> [<ffffffff8028d676>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x116/0x130 > > >> [<ffffffff803bf78e>] bus_add_driver+0xae/0x220 > > >> [<ffffffff803c0046>] driver_register+0x56/0x130 > > >> [<ffffffff8036cee8>] __pci_register_driver+0x68/0xb0 > > >> [<ffffffff80708a29>] kernel_init+0x139/0x390 > > >> [<ffffffff8020c358>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 > > >> [<ffffffff807088f0>] kernel_init+0x0/0x390 > > >> [<ffffffff8020c34e>] child_rip+0x0/0x12 > > >> > > >> > > >> Code: c9 00 00 02 00 25 00 08 00 00 89 4c 24 04 89 04 24 44 89 e9 b8 01 00 00 00 d3 e0 48 98 48 89 44 24 08 65 48 8b 2c 25 00 00 00 00 <49> 83 7e 08 00 0f 84 9a 03 00 00 44 8b 44 24 1c 48 8b 74 24 10 > > >> RIP [<ffffffff8026ac60>] __alloc_pages_internal+0x80/0x470 > > >> RSP <ffff810bf9dbdbc0> > > >> CR2: 0000000000001e08 > > >> ---[ end trace 111493bba2b1f3db ]--- > > > > > > grumble. why. There are lots of patches already which changed the > > > page allocator. > > > > > > config, please? > > I have attached the .config file. > > I cannot reproduce it with your config on my non-numa box. > > > > Is it NUMA? > > It is a NUMA box, with 4 nodes. > > Can you bisect it please? > > Wrecking the page allocator is a fairly unusual thing to do. I'd start > out by looking at *bootmem*.patch and perhaps > acpi-acpi_numa_init-build-fix.patch.
From stack trace, it seems NODE_DATA(nid) is NULL. There are 2 cases. - nid is bad. - NODE_DATA(nid) is not initialized...
Hmm.. Thanks, -Kame
| |