[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4954AA0B.9030401@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:55:23 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: DEBUG_PAGEALLOC + order-10 alloc/free_pages = lockup
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com> wrote:
>
>> An order-10 alloc_pages followed by free_pages with DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
>> causes a lockup during subsequent memory allocations. Order-9 and lower
>> do not trigger the problem. This problem was introduced in 2.6.25-rc1
>> and fixed in 2.6.28-rc1. Even though the bug is now fixed, I am
>> reporting it because:
>>
>> 1) I am not sure that anyone ever realized that the bug existed.
>
> Correct.
>
>> 2) I want to make sure that the bug is really fixed and not just hidden
>> from view.
>
> i think it got hidden. Apparently splitting up a large kernel linear page
> in IRQ context has a bug. I dont see it immediately what it could be -
> Thomas, Suresh, do you have any ideas?
>
>> 3) To see if anyone thinks that the fix should be included in
>> 2.6.27 -stable.
>
> if 0b8fdcbcd287a1fbe66817491e6149841ae25705 applies cleanly to .27 -stable
> then i'd agree it should be added. If there's lots of dependencies then
> maybe not.
I also wonder who is doing an order 10 allocation... that'd worry me ;)
--
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