Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760872AbZD3L0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:26:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753837AbZD3L0O (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:26:14 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:33421 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752140AbZD3L0O (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:26:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:26:12 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Sachin Sant , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Next April 28: boot failure on PowerPC with SLQB Message-ID: <20090430112612.GD6900@wotan.suse.de> References: <49F87FAB.9050408@in.ibm.com> <20090430041146.GB23746@wotan.suse.de> <49F938E4.2030703@in.ibm.com> <20090430064127.GF23746@wotan.suse.de> <49F973A0.8070106@in.ibm.com> <20090430103528.GA6900@wotan.suse.de> <1241087884.19252.5.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090430210004.05a61841.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090430111825.GC6900@wotan.suse.de> <1241090429.19252.7.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1241090429.19252.7.camel@penberg-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 34 On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 02:20:29PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 13:18 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > OK thanks. So I think we have 2 problems. One with MAX_ORDER <= 9 > > that is fixed by the previous patch, and another which is probably > > due to having no memory on node 0 which I will take another look > > at now. > > > > We can merge the previous patch now, though. > > Hmm, I'll bet this BUG_ON triggers for Stephen. > > diff --git a/mm/slqb.c b/mm/slqb.c > index a651843..e4b3859 100644 > --- a/mm/slqb.c > +++ b/mm/slqb.c > @@ -1391,6 +1391,7 @@ static noinline void *__slab_alloc_page(struct kmem_cache *s, > struct kmem_cache_node *n; > > n = s->node_slab[slqb_page_to_nid(page)]; > + BUG_ON(!n); > l = &n->list; > page->list = l; Yes I'm betting it does, but I can't see why it should. CPU0 should have node_slab allocated for node 1 if node 1 has memory. And conversely, slqb_page_to_nid(page) should never evaluate to 0 if node 0 has no memory online. -- 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/