[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0908062045270.944@sister.anvils>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 21:03:03 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: Thomas Hellström <thomas@...gstengraphics.com>
cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: shmem + TTM oops
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> Hi!
> I've been debugging a strange problem for a while, and it'd be nice to have
> some more eyes on this.
>
> When the TTM graphics memory manager decides it's using too much memory, it
> copies the contents of the buffer to shmem objects and releases the buffers.
> This is because shmem objects are pageable whereas TTM buffers are not. When
> the TTM buffers are accessed in one way or another, it copies contents back.
> Seems to work fairly nice, but not really optimal.
>
> When the X server is VT switched, TTM optionally switches out all buffers to
> shmem objects, but when the contents are read back, some shmem objects have
> corrupted swap entry top directory. The member
> shmem_inode_info::i_indirect[0] usually contains a value 0xffffff60 or
> something similar, causing an oops in shmem_truncate_range() when the shmem
> object is freed. Before that, readback seems to work OK. The corruption is
> happening after X server VT switch when TTM is supposed to be idle. The shmem
> objects have been verified to have swap entry directories after all buffer
> objects have been swapped out.
Not a symptom I've ever come across: I agree strange. A few questions:
What architecture? I assume x86 32-bit; if so, what happens on 64-bit?
if not x86, what is your PAGE_SIZE?
What size are these objects i.e. how many pages?
What release? I'm assuming 2.6.31-rc5 and various earlier.
What slab allocator? what if you choose another (SLUB versus SLAB)?
Please turn on all the slab/slub debugging you can.
And you say i_indirect "usually contains a value 0xffffff60 or something
similar": please give other examples of what you find there (if possible,
with a rough idea of their frequency e.g. is 0xffffff60 the most common?).
Does there appear to be corruption of any other nearby fields?
Thanks.
>
> If anyone could shed some light over this, it would be very helpful. Relevant
> TTM code is fairly straightforward looks like this. The process that copies
> out to shmem objects may not be the same process that copies in:
I didn't notice anything wrong with your code; and it wouldn't
be easy for it to corrupt that field of shmem_inode_info.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists