netdev - Re: WARNING: at mm/slub.c:3357, kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:3413

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1322012633.14573.22.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:43:53 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: at mm/slub.c:3357, kernel BUG at mm/slub.c:3413


> > I just want to see whether your network + heavy IO load problem goes
> > away with that one patch.
> 
> Sorry, I should have been clearer in that mail: the high "load" value 
> isn't a problem - the intermittent panics are. What I meant to say was: 
> the panics usually occur when lots of disk & cpu IO is in progress (rsync 
> to an external but local disk over firewire). While doing this the load is 
> usally at 3-5, but that's "normal" and expected for a machine of that age. 

No, I understand your problem. What I meant above is to see whether you
reproduce the crash caused by network + heavy IO :-)

> But then the machine crashes with recent kernels. After setting the 
> cpu_partial files to 0 I tried to reproduce the same I/O pattern, *plus* a 
> bit more, to really stress the machine, so load went up to 6-7 and the 
> machine did not crash. So the load of 6-7 was expected and I'm glad that 
> the machine did not crash with that workaround. I don't know of the 
> implications of setting cpu_partial to 0 though.

Right. Now we want to check if that patch from Christoph fixes cpu
partial.

> As soon as the build with Christoph's one-liner is done I'll test w/o 
> setting cpu_partial to 0 and see what it gives.

Thanks !

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html