Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:20:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
       Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub
Message-ID: <20070522112008.GA16308@elte.hu>
References: <20070522092439.GA19895@elte.hu> <559665.2852.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <559665.2852.qm@web52608.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1052
Lines: 26


* Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Compiled slub with SMP & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. No luck. It still hangs 
> solid after the second spinlock lockup call trace.

hm. This suggests that the spinlock got corrupted - otherwise lockdep 
would have complained about the lockup before the spinlock-debug code 
had its chance.

> Surprisingly, with CONFIG_SMP=n, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING produces this 
> with slub (then hangs solid):

yes - PROVE_LOCKING reactivates spinlocks even on UP. At least this 
suggests that you'd have gotten the hang even with maxcpus=1 - i.e. the 
spinlock corruption is not caused by some genuine SMP race.

furthermore, PROVE_LOCKING also turns on DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, so we now 
know that it's most likely not use-after-free type of corruption.

	Ingo
-
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/