Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261807AbVA0CSP (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:18:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261804AbVAZXnV (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:43:21 -0500 Received: from mail.joq.us ([67.65.12.105]:40412 "EHLO sulphur.joq.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261805AbVAZSzy (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:55:54 -0500 To: hihone@bigpond.net.au Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux , CK Kernel Subject: Re: [ck] [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU feature, -D7 References: <87y8eo9hed.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050120172506.GA20295@elte.hu> <87wtu6fho8.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050122165458.GA14426@elte.hu> <87hdl940ph.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050124085902.GA8059@elte.hu> <20050124125814.GA31471@elte.hu> <20050125135613.GA18650@elte.hu> <41F6C5CE.9050303@bigpond.net.au> <41F6C797.80403@bigpond.net.au> <20050126100846.GB8720@elte.hu> <41F7C2CA.2080107@bigpond.net.au> <87acqwnnx1.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <41F7DA1B.5060806@bigpond.net.au> From: "Jack O'Quin" Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:57:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: <41F7DA1B.5060806@bigpond.net.au> (Cal's message of "Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:57:47 +1100") Message-ID: <87vf9km31j.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Corporate Culture, linux) 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: 1294 Lines: 32 Cal writes: > Jack O'Quin wrote: >> I notice that JACK's call to mlockall() is failing. This is one >> difference between your system and mine (plus, my machine is UP). >> As an experiment, you might try testing with `ulimit -l unlimited'. > > I went for the panic retraction on the first report when I saw the > failures in the log. With ulimit -l unlimited, jack seems > happier. Before the change, ulimit -l showed 32. > > At what feels like approaching the end of the run, it still goes clunk > totally so, dead and gone! > > > > I'll re-read the mails that have gone by, and think about the next step. You seem to have eliminated the mlock() failure as the cause of this crash. It should not have caused it anyway, but it *was* one noticeable difference between your tests and mine. Since do_page_fault() appears in the backtrace, that is useful to know. The other big difference is SMP. What happens if you build a UP kernel and run it on your SMP machine? -- joq - 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/