[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080621175458.E82A.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:56:17 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Experimental][PATCH] putback_lru_page rework
> Quick update:
>
> With this patch applied, at ~ 1.5 hours into the test, my system panic'd
> [panic_on_oops set] with a BUG in __find_get_block() -- looks like the
> BUG_ON() in check_irqs_on() called from bh_lru_install() inlined by
> __find_get_block(). Before the panic occurred, I saw warnings from
> native_smp_call_function_mask() [arch/x86/kernel/smp.c]--also because
> irqs_disabled().
>
> I'll back out the changes [spin_[un]lock() => spin_[un]lock_irq()] to
> shrink_inactive_list() and try again. Just a hunch.
Yup.
Kamezawa-san's patch remove local_irq_enable(), but don't remove
local_irq_disable().
thus, irq is never enabled.
> - spin_unlock(&zone->lru_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> done:
> - local_irq_enable();
--
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