[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080415211953.GA4243@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:19:53 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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,
apw@...dowen.org, travis@....com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [bug] SLUB + mm/slab.c boot crash in -rc9
* Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > and the bug pattern seems to be memory corruption - not memory
> > exhaustion.
>
> SLUB does not do a memory allocation where it fails here but simply
> accesses per cpu information that is expected to be already zeroed.
>
> > i.e. we allocated RAM but it got corrupted after allocation.
>
> In some situations we are screwing up the per cpu data handling on 32
> bit x86? Adding Mike. This looks like the per cpu area overlaps with
> something else?
yep, that was my other theory - and i doubled CONFIG_NR_CPUS to reduce
that chance.
in hindsight ... that wont save us from any overlap, right?
what's the best way to artificially increase the size of the allocated
per cpu area? (say double it)
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