[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070522112008.GA16308@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:20:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@...te.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub
* Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> Compiled slub with SMP & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. No luck. It still hangs
> solid after the second spinlock lockup call trace.
hm. This suggests that the spinlock got corrupted - otherwise lockdep
would have complained about the lockup before the spinlock-debug code
had its chance.
> Surprisingly, with CONFIG_SMP=n, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING produces this
> with slub (then hangs solid):
yes - PROVE_LOCKING reactivates spinlocks even on UP. At least this
suggests that you'd have gotten the hang even with maxcpus=1 - i.e. the
spinlock corruption is not caused by some genuine SMP race.
furthermore, PROVE_LOCKING also turns on DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, so we now
know that it's most likely not use-after-free type of corruption.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists