Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:25:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:25:08 -0500 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com ([12.107.208.154]:62815 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:24:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:24:45 -0500 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Ed Tomlinson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BUG] in 2.4.17 after 10 days uptime Message-ID: <20020107212445.A7376@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20020101145605.B3283@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 04:28:12PM -0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 04:28:12PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Is my thinking correct ? Yes, that's the case I was thinking of. sendfile() and tux are potential triggers of this. > If so, I don't see why Ed's trace BUGs at rmqueue first: It should bug at > __free_pages_ok() PageLRU check. Hmm, as we've discussed on irc, there are some other nasty implications of the __free_pages code interacting with shrink_cache without this patch. I'm not certain that explains it, but it could. Ed, have you seen this oops again? What kind of load is the machine under? -ben -- Fish. - 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/