Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765590AbXEWRK2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 13:10:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756240AbXEWRKV (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 13:10:21 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:53272 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755869AbXEWRKU (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 13:10:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:10:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Srihari Vijayaraghavan cc: Hugh Dickins , Ingo Molnar , Oliver Xymoron , Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub In-Reply-To: <294534.72400.qm@web52611.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <294534.72400.qm@web52611.mail.re2.yahoo.com> 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: 1678 Lines: 37 On Wed, 23 May 2007, Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote: > > and then try to boot without slub_debug. > > I guess you mean with CONFIG_SLUB_CONFIG=y? If so, I built another kernel with > CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y (plus all of the above) & tested it. It panics by default, > but with slub_nomerge it works just fine (tested under moderate load). > > (the panic message produced by CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y was the exact same call > trace as my very first email in this email thread with slightly different > address on a couple of functions, but rest remains the same) Ahh... At least we are getting to the original problem. > I'm personally very happy that slub works stably without slub debug options, > because that's what I'd run in a production env. Thanks to your patch, slub is > quite stable without the slub debug for me :-)). But it'd to nice to have a > working slub debug for test env., as you'd undoubtedly be aware of, of course > :-). Just my humble opinion. > > > If that fails then boot with slub_nomerge So lockdep has issues with slab merging? If locks are tracking within slabs then I imagine that lockdep gets confused if we put them together. > Yup, I had to use slub_nomerge; without that CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y kernel > panics. (I haven't tested the UP case though. I did try nosmp & maxcpus=1, but > they had no effect on the panic. Do you want me to test UP case for > CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y without slub_nomerge?) Yes. - 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/