[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804220330.27034.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:30:25 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-git2: BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffffffffff
On Tuesday, 22 of April 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > The same place, dentry.d_hash.next is 1. No slub debug clues... I think, I'll
> > > give slab a try. Any other clues?
> >
> > Well, SLUB uses some per CPU data structures. Is it possible that they get
> > corrupted and which leads to the observed symptoms?
>
> It really doesn't look like the slub allocations themselves would be
> corrupted. It very much looks like wild pointers corrupting allocations
> that themselves were fine.
>
> The nybble pattern looked intriguing (especially as it apparently also hit
> a normal page cache page!) but obviously not everything matches that
> pattern (eg your value of 1).
>
> What do you do to trigger this? Any particular load? Is it still just
> doing suspend/resume, or do you have something else that you are playing
> with?
I've seen that only once, so far. Jiri seems to be able to trigger it more often.
> Also, have you tried CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC? That can also be a very
> powerful way to find memory corruption.
I always have CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC set.
> Does anybody see any other patterns? Looking at the modules linked in in
> the oopses from Zdenek, Rafael and Jiri, I don't see anything odd. You
> both all have 80211 support, maybe the corruption comes from the wireless
> layer?
Well, I thought about that too. However, I had a hang before 2.6.25-git2 that
I suspect was related (I couldn't get any information from the box, as it just
hung solid), so I'd rather suspect some x86 changes.
> Or maybe it's the x86 code changes themselves, and it really is about the
> suspend/resume sequence itself.
It seems to be specific to x86-64, AFAICS.
> Are all the people who see this doing suspends?
I'm not sure.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists