[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52A5FABE.2020604@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:15:42 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: joern@...fs.org, mgorman@...e.de,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>, riel@...hat.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG in munlock_vma_pages_range
On 12/09/2013 12:12 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 06:05 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 12/09/2013 04:34 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> Hello, I will look at it, thanks.
>>> Do you have specific reproduction instructions?
>>
>> Not really, the fuzzer hit it once and I've been unable to trigger it again. Looking at
>> the piece of code involved it might have had something to do with hugetlbfs, so I'll crank
>> up testing on that part.
>
> Thanks. Do you have trinity log and the .config file? I'm currently unable to even boot linux-next
> with my config/setup due to a GPF.
> Looking at code I wouldn't expect that it could encounter a tail page, without first encountering a
> head page and skipping the whole huge page. At least in THP case, as TLB pages should be split when
> a vma is split. As for hugetlbfs, it should be skipped for mlock/munlock operations completely. One
> of these assumptions is probably failing here...
I've attached my .config, I don't keep trinity logs because they bloat/slow down the testing too
much (I'm usually testing in vms with 64 or over vcpus).
Thanks,
Sasha
View attachment "config-sasha" of type "text/plain" (156165 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists