Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 May 2009 00:21:42 +0900 | Subject | Re: kernel BUG at mm/slqb.c:1411! | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> |
| |
2009/5/15 Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>: > Hi Motohiro-san, > > On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 17:37 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: >> > > > On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:42:37 +0900 (JST) >> > > > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hmm. I don't know slqb well. >> > > > So, It's just my guess. >> > > > >> > > > We surely increase l->nr_partial in __slab_alloc_page. >> > > > In between l->nr_partial++ and call __cache_list_get_page, Who is decrease l->nr_partial again. >> > > > After all, __cache_list_get_page return NULL and hit the VM_BUG_ON. >> > > > >> > > > Comment said : >> > > > >> > > > /* Protects nr_partial, nr_slabs, and partial */ >> > > > spinlock_t page_lock; >> > > > >> > > > As comment is right, We have to hold the l->page_lock ? >> > > >> > > Makes sense. Nick? Motohiro-san, can you try this patch please? >> > >> > This issue is very rarely. please give me one night. > > On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 08:38 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> -ENOTREPRODUCED >> >> I guess your patch is right fix. thanks! > > Thank you so much for testing! > > Nick seems to have gone silent for the past few days so I went ahead and > merged the patch. > > Did you have CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled, btw? I think I got the lock > order correct but I don't have a NUMA machine to test it with here.
my x86_64 with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING don't output any warnings.
thanks. -- 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/
| |