Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262567AbTESRGc (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 13:06:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262568AbTESRGb (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 13:06:31 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:20127 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262567AbTESRGa (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 13:06:30 -0400 Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Subject: Re: CIFS oops in 2.5.69-mm5 To: Martin Josefsson Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a July 24, 2000 Message-ID: From: Steven French Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:10:09 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM123/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.1 [IBM]|April 28, 2003) at 05/19/2003 11:19:17 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1921 Lines: 49 Looks like this oops occurred right next to a list_for_each in which I demultiplex the received network response from the server and try to match it against one of the pending requests in the list. No obvious reason was this should oops and access to the list is spinlock protected. The location reminds me of the problems with prefetch that Jon Grimm and Andi were mentioning. >I just tried mouting a cifs share in 2.5.69-mm5 and got this during the >attempt. > >Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 4fb899ce >printing eip: >.eeac8eed >*pde = 00000000 >Oops: 0002 [#1] >CPU: 0 >EIP: 0060:[] Not tainted VLI >EFLAGS: 00010246 >EIP is at cifs_demultiplex_thread+0x329/0x4c8 [cifs] >eax: eaf21664 ebx: dbe42450 ecx: eaf21600 edx: 00000000 >esi: 0000005b edi: 0000005b ebp: c1efffec esp: c1efffa8 >ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068 >Process cifsd (pid: 21104, threadinfo=c1efe000 task=eafeae00) Although one of the three newer cifs changesets at bk://cifs.bkbits.net/linux-2.5cifs (changeset 1.1115) adds missing spinlock protection for modifications to the one list that was missing spinlocks (the cifs open file list) and changes a list_for_each to list_for_each_safe in one case where releasing the spinlock temporarily was necessary, which does fix a different oops, none of the three pending cifs vfs changesets are likely to affect this problem. This one looks unrelated and plausibly similar to the other two reports of general prefetch problems mentioned in earlier posts. Steve French Senior Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin phone: 512-838-2294 email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/