[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0804150838161.2879@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Yinghai.Lu@....com
Subject: Re: [bug] SLUB + mm/slab.c boot crash in -rc9
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> debug output is:
>
> http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/log-Thu_Apr_10_10_41_16_CEST_2008.bad.rc9
>
> so it's probably the first few page allocations (setup_cpu_cache())
> going wrong already - suggesting a some fundamental borkage in SLAB?
Well, I think it suggests some fundamental borkage in the page allocator.
That first warn-on is from the "alloc_pages_node()" returning NULL at
bootup. Sure, it could be that the arguments are bogus, but that sounds
unlikely since none of that is dependent on any kconfig stuff.
The fact that it happens with both SLUB/SLAB makes that even more obvious.
Now, you don't have fault injection on, so it can't be that, and your
debug entry for *z == NULL didn' trigger in alloc_pages, so it's no that
one either.
However, if __alloc_pages() failed, I would have expected to see the
"memory allocation failed" printk. Why didn't it? Is printk_ratelimit()
broken at boot (last_msg start out as zero - maybe i should start out as
a negative number)?
Linus
--
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