On Thu, 15 May 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 01:37 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> On 04/07/2014 04:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:40:46PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > It also breaks fairly quickly under tes
On 05/15/2014 01:37 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 04/07/2014 04:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:40:46PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> It also breaks fairly quickly under testing because:
>
> On 04/07/2014 10:48 AM,
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/07/2014 04:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:40:46PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> > It also breaks fairly quickly under testing because:
> >> >
> >> > On 04/07/2014 10:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> > > + i
On 04/07/2014 04:11 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:40:46PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > It also breaks fairly quickly under testing because:
>> >
>> > On 04/07/2014 10:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)) {
>>> > > +
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:40:46PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> It also breaks fairly quickly under testing because:
>
> On 04/07/2014 10:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)) {
> > + spin_lock(ptl);
>
> ^ We go into atomic
>
> > + if
It also breaks fairly quickly under testing because:
On 04/07/2014 10:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC)) {
> + spin_lock(ptl);
^ We go into atomic
> + if (unlikely(!pmd_same(*pmd, orig_pmd)))
> + goto out_r
On 04/07/2014 10:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:37:20PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > And another ping exactly a year later :)
> I think we could "fix" this false positive with the patch below
> (untested), but it's ugly and doesn't add much value.
I could carry tha
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 03:37:20PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> And another ping exactly a year later :)
I think we could "fix" this false positive with the patch below
(untested), but it's ugly and doesn't add much value.
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 6ac89e9f82ef..65ac11
And another ping exactly a year later :)
Yes, this is still happening in -next:
[ 370.615914] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 880768c72000
[ 370.620246] IP: copy_page (arch/x86/lib/copy_page_64.S:34)
[ 370.620246] PGD 1091c067 PUD 102c5e6067 PMD 102c49f067 PTE 800768c720
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 10:59 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >
> > > [ 762.701278] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at
> > > 88009eae6000
> > > [ 762.702462] IP: [] copy_page_rep+0x5/0x10
> > > [ 762.710135] C
On 02/03/2014 10:59 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 04/25/2013 10:01 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:27PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Guys, did this get fixed?
>
> I've stopped see
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 04/25/2013 10:01 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:27PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > Guys, did this get fixed?
> > > >
> > > > I've stopped
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 10:01 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:27PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Guys, did this get fixed?
> > >
> > > I've stopped seeing that during fuzzing, so I
On 04/25/2013 10:01 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:27PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Guys, did this get fixed?
>
> I've stopped seeing that during fuzzing, so I guess that it got fixed
somehow...
We've had reports of u
On 04/25/2013 10:01 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:27PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Guys, did this get fixed?
> >
> > I've stopped seeing that during fuzzing, so I guess that it got fixed
> somehow...
>
> We've had r
On 04/24/2013 04:40 PM, Simon Jeons wrote:
>
> I see in memblock_trim_memory(): start = round_up(orig_start, align);
> here align is PAGE_SIZE, so the dump of zone ranges in my machine is [
> 0.00] DMA [mem 0x1000-0x00ff]. Why PFN 0 is not
> used? just for align?
>
PFN 0 con
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:27PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Guys, did this get fixed?
>
> I've stopped seeing that during fuzzing, so I guess that it got fixed
> somehow...
We've had reports of users hitting this in 3.8
eg:
https://bugzil
Hello hpa,
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:51:12PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 01:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > When I am looking at the code, I was wonder about the logic of GHZP(aka,
> > get_huge_zero_page) reference handling. The logic depends on that page
> > allocator never a
On 04/24/2013 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:14:29 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/2013 11:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> Sasha Levin wrote:
On 04/10/2013 04:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I don't know this issue was already resolved. If so, my reply be
On 04/10/2013 01:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> When I am looking at the code, I was wonder about the logic of GHZP(aka,
> get_huge_zero_page) reference handling. The logic depends on that page
> allocator never alocate PFN 0.
>
> Who makes sure it? What happens if allocator allocates PFN 0?
> I d
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:14:29 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/11/2013 11:13 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> On 04/10/2013 04:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> I don't know this issue was already resolved. If so, my reply become a
> >>> just
> >>> question to Kirill regard
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:18:13PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:04:16AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next
> > > kernel,
> > > I've stumbled on the fol
Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 04:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > I don't know this issue was already resolved. If so, my reply become a just
> > question to Kirill regardless of this BUG.
>
> The issue is still reproducible with today's -next.
Could you share your kernel config and configurati
On 04/10/2013 04:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I don't know this issue was already resolved. If so, my reply become a just
> question to Kirill regardless of this BUG.
The issue is still reproducible with today's -next.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:04:16AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next
> > kernel,
> > I've stumbled on the following.
> >
> > It seems that the code in do_huge_pmd_wp_page() was recently modi
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:04:16AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next
> kernel,
> I've stumbled on the following.
>
> It seems that the code in do_huge_pmd_wp_page() was recently modified in
> "thp: do_huge_pmd_wp_page
On 04/04/2013 12:28 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 04/04/2013 10:30 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> Sasha Levin wrote:
Ping? I'm seeing a whole bunch of these with current -next.
>>>
>>> Do you have a way to reproduce?
>>
>> Not really, trinity just manages to make
Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 04/04/2013 10:30 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> Ping? I'm seeing a whole bunch of these with current -next.
> >
> > Do you have a way to reproduce?
>
> Not really, trinity just manages to make it happen quite often.
>
> I can add something in th
On 04/04/2013 10:30 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Ping? I'm seeing a whole bunch of these with current -next.
>
> Do you have a way to reproduce?
Not really, trinity just manages to make it happen quite often.
I can add something in the code to spew more debug info when i
Sasha Levin wrote:
> Ping? I'm seeing a whole bunch of these with current -next.
Do you have a way to reproduce?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://
Ping? I'm seeing a whole bunch of these with current -next.
Thanks,
Sasha
On 03/29/2013 09:04 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next
> kernel,
> I've stumbled on the following.
>
> It seems that the code in do_huge_pmd_wp_
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running latest -next kernel,
I've stumbled on the following.
It seems that the code in do_huge_pmd_wp_page() was recently modified in
"thp: do_huge_pmd_wp_page(): handle huge zero page".
Here's the trace:
[ 246.244708] BUG: unable to
32 matches
Mail list logo
