[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <441137.33501.qm@web52606.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 21:26:40 +1000 (EST)
From: Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@...oo.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
--- Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
[...]
> 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.
You're right on the mark there: even with maxcpus=1 or nosmp (or with both),
with PROVE_LOCKING it hung with slub. I didn't mention that so not to confuse
the matter, but you rightly figured that out too.
Thanks
___________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html
-
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