Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:38:50AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> All patches are in 3,17-rc1
FYI, the warning/bug still triggers with 3.17-rc2 during GCC bootstrap:
[94075.963753] [ cut here ]
[94076.018105] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 17192 at
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:38:50AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
All patches are in 3,17-rc1
FYI, the warning/bug still triggers with 3.17-rc2 during GCC bootstrap:
[94075.963753] [ cut here ]
[94076.018105] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 17192 at
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:45:03AM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Stupid question: aren't the Ultra 5 and Ultra 10 essentially
> the same hardware?
Basically yes, but often configurations are different (CPU speed,
memory capacity, peripherals, PROM versions).
A.
--
To unsubscribe from this
Meanwhile, a Ultra 1 with overnight looping git clone got exit_mmap
warning again with 3.17.0-rc1. Otherwise it is working good.
[11052.686935] [ cut here ]
[11052.740486] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2541 at mm/mmap.c:2766
exit_mmap+0x138/0x160()
[11052.827934] Modules linked
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 09:45:03AM +1000, Julian Calaby wrote:
Stupid question: aren't the Ultra 5 and Ultra 10 essentially
the same hardware?
Basically yes, but often configurations are different (CPU speed,
memory capacity, peripherals, PROM versions).
A.
--
To unsubscribe from this
Meanwhile, a Ultra 1 with overnight looping git clone got exit_mmap
warning again with 3.17.0-rc1. Otherwise it is working good.
[11052.686935] [ cut here ]
[11052.740486] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2541 at mm/mmap.c:2766
exit_mmap+0x138/0x160()
[11052.827934] Modules linked
Hi All,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:16PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
>> > U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
>> > to them physically.
>>
>> Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots up,
From: Aaro Koskinen
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:35:52 +0300
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:16PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
>> > U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
>> > to them physically.
>>
>> Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots up,
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:16PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
> > to them physically.
>
> Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots up, then aftyer
> strarting postfix and ntpd, gets RED state exception and
> U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
> to them physically.
Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots up, then aftyer
strarting postfix and ntpd, gets RED state exception and contiunes
looping with it (before it gor RED state only after prom reboot).
U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
to them physically.
Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots up, then aftyer
strarting postfix and ntpd, gets RED state exception and contiunes
looping with it (before it gor RED state only after prom reboot).
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:16PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
to them physically.
Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots up, then aftyer
strarting postfix and ntpd, gets RED state exception and
From: Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:35:52 +0300
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:16PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
to them physically.
Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots
Hi All,
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:16PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
U1, U2, U5, U10, E220R, E420R later or some other day, whenever I get
to them physically.
Ultra 5 is bad news with 3.17-rc1: it almost boots
> > Did not test current git more.
>
> Current git fails to boot without this fix which I posted the other
> day:
T2000 is OK with todays GIT, hugepages gcc 4.9.1.
V100 and Netra X1 now loop indefinitely on successful reboot in PROM
recursive fault (3.16 had the fault once and continued).
Got
Did not test current git more.
Current git fails to boot without this fix which I posted the other
day:
T2000 is OK with todays GIT, hugepages gcc 4.9.1.
V100 and Netra X1 now loop indefinitely on successful reboot in PROM
recursive fault (3.16 had the fault once and continued).
Got this
> > Did not test current git more.
>
> Current git fails to boot without this fix which I posted the other
> day:
>
>
> [PATCH 1/2] sparc64: Do not disable interrupts in nmi_cpu_busy()
Thanks, I noticed it on sparclinux@ but did not add one and one
together. Now it seems
Did not test current git more.
Current git fails to boot without this fix which I posted the other
day:
[PATCH 1/2] sparc64: Do not disable interrupts in nmi_cpu_busy()
Thanks, I noticed it on sparclinux@ but did not add one and one
together. Now it seems to work
From: Meelis Roos
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:44:42 +0300 (EEST)
> Did not test current git more.
Current git fails to boot without this fix which I posted the other
day:
[PATCH 1/2] sparc64: Do not disable interrupts in nmi_cpu_busy()
nmi_cpu_busy() is a SMP function call
I tested the merged sparc64 fixes in current git.
V100: with hugetlb, looping git clone still hangs the machine. RED
state on reboot has changed - before it gave the trace on reboot and
continued, now it contonues looping with the trace indefinitely, gcc
4.6.4
Netra X1: works fine with
I tested the merged sparc64 fixes in current git.
V100: with hugetlb, looping git clone still hangs the machine. RED
state on reboot has changed - before it gave the trace on reboot and
continued, now it contonues looping with the trace indefinitely, gcc
4.6.4
Netra X1: works fine with
From: Meelis Roos mr...@linux.ee
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:44:42 +0300 (EEST)
Did not test current git more.
Current git fails to boot without this fix which I posted the other
day:
[PATCH 1/2] sparc64: Do not disable interrupts in nmi_cpu_busy()
nmi_cpu_busy() is a SMP
> Here is something I'd like you guys to test.
Very interesting.
[...]
> Could you guys please try this patch below? Thanks.
CC arch/sparc/mm/init_64.o
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c: In function 'update_mmu_cache_pmd':
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c:2625:6: error: 'pte' may be used uninitialized in
From: Meelis Roos
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:02:53 +0300 (EEST)
>> Here is something I'd like you guys to test.
>
> Very interesting.
>
> [...]
>> Could you guys please try this patch below? Thanks.
>
> CC arch/sparc/mm/init_64.o
> arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c: In function
From: Meelis Roos mr...@linux.ee
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 01:02:53 +0300 (EEST)
Here is something I'd like you guys to test.
Very interesting.
[...]
Could you guys please try this patch below? Thanks.
CC arch/sparc/mm/init_64.o
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c: In function
Here is something I'd like you guys to test.
Very interesting.
[...]
Could you guys please try this patch below? Thanks.
CC arch/sparc/mm/init_64.o
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c: In function 'update_mmu_cache_pmd':
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c:2625:6: error: 'pte' may be used uninitialized in
From: mr...@linux.ee
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:22:17 +0300 (EEST)
>> > Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
>>
>> Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
>>
>> After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
>> suspecting it's a problem with
From: mr...@linux.ee
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:22:17 +0300 (EEST)
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
suspecting it's a problem with transparent
> > This is todays fresh git with 3.15.0-rc6-00190-g1ee1cea on V210, THP
> > enabled & always on. Got this and a segfault on apt-spawned xz.
>
> Thanks a lot for the report.
>
> I've been bogged down with other things but I will come back to
> this stuff soon.
Just to document a strangeness
This is todays fresh git with 3.15.0-rc6-00190-g1ee1cea on V210, THP
enabled always on. Got this and a segfault on apt-spawned xz.
Thanks a lot for the report.
I've been bogged down with other things but I will come back to
this stuff soon.
Just to document a strangeness that does
From: mr...@linux.ee
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 23:02:28 +0300 (EEST)
> This is todays fresh git with 3.15.0-rc6-00190-g1ee1cea on V210, THP
> enabled & always on. Got this and a segfault on apt-spawned xz.
Thanks a lot for the report.
I've been bogged down with other things but I will come back
This is todays fresh git with 3.15.0-rc6-00190-g1ee1cea on V210, THP
enabled & always on. Got this and a segfault on apt-spawned xz.
[ 142.599575] [ cut here ]
[ 142.660349] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2237 at mm/mmap.c:2741
exit_mmap+0x140/0x160()
[ 142.756483] Modules
This is todays fresh git with 3.15.0-rc6-00190-g1ee1cea on V210, THP
enabled always on. Got this and a segfault on apt-spawned xz.
[ 142.599575] [ cut here ]
[ 142.660349] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 2237 at mm/mmap.c:2741
exit_mmap+0x140/0x160()
[ 142.756483] Modules
From: mr...@linux.ee
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 23:02:28 +0300 (EEST)
This is todays fresh git with 3.15.0-rc6-00190-g1ee1cea on V210, THP
enabled always on. Got this and a segfault on apt-spawned xz.
Thanks a lot for the report.
I've been bogged down with other things but I will come back to
From: Aaro Koskinen
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:09:08 +0300
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:58:22PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> One thing you two can do to help me further confirm this is to run
>> with THP disabled for a while and see if you still get the log
>> messages.
>>
>> Simply, as root:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:58:22PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> One thing you two can do to help me further confirm this is to run
> with THP disabled for a while and see if you still get the log
> messages.
>
> Simply, as root:
>
> bash# echo "never"
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:58:22PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
One thing you two can do to help me further confirm this is to run
with THP disabled for a while and see if you still get the log
messages.
Simply, as root:
bash# echo never /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
From: Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:09:08 +0300
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 02:58:22PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
One thing you two can do to help me further confirm this is to run
with THP disabled for a while and see if you still get the log
messages.
Simply,
> > Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
>
> Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
>
> After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
> suspecting it's a problem with transparent huge pages.
>
> One thing you two can do to help me further
From: mr...@linux.ee
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:22:17 +0300 (EEST)
>> > Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
>>
>> Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
>>
>> After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
>> suspecting it's a problem with
From: Aaro Koskinen
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:43:53 +0300
> Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
suspecting it's a problem with transparent huge pages.
From: Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:43:53 +0300
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
suspecting it's a problem with
From: mr...@linux.ee
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:22:17 +0300 (EEST)
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
suspecting it's a problem with transparent
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
Meelis and Aaro, thanks again for all of your reports.
After pouring over a lot of the data and auditing some code I'm
suspecting it's a problem with transparent huge pages.
One thing you two can do to help me further confirm
From: Aaro Koskinen
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:43:53 +0300
> Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
>
> [68674.536190] [ cut here ]
> [68674.590467] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 14600 at
> /home/aaro/los/work/shared/linux-v3.14/mm/mmap.c:2738
Hi,
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
[68674.536190] [ cut here ]
[68674.590467] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 14600 at
/home/aaro/los/work/shared/linux-v3.14/mm/mmap.c:2738 exit_mmap+0x138/0x160()
[68674.719635] Modules linked in:
[68674.756022] CPU: 0
Hi,
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
[68674.536190] [ cut here ]
[68674.590467] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 14600 at
/home/aaro/los/work/shared/linux-v3.14/mm/mmap.c:2738 exit_mmap+0x138/0x160()
[68674.719635] Modules linked in:
[68674.756022] CPU: 0
From: Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 21:43:53 +0300
Just for the archives, I got one of these again with 3.14:
[68674.536190] [ cut here ]
[68674.590467] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 14600 at
/home/aaro/los/work/shared/linux-v3.14/mm/mmap.c:2738
From: Aaro Koskinen
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:46:12 +0300
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:40:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
>> >> > Got this in 3.10-rc6
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:40:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> >> > Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
> >> > 3.10-rc5
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:40:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
3.10-rc5 did not
From: Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 20:46:12 +0300
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:40:42PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
Got this in
From: Aaro Koskinen
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:58:39 +0300
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
>> > Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
>> > 3.10-rc5 did not exhibit
From: Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:58:39 +0300
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
3.10-rc5 did
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
> > 3.10-rc5 did not exhibit this (nor any other kernel recently tried,
> > including
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
> Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
> 3.10-rc5 did not exhibit this (nor any other kernel recently tried,
> including most -rc's). Does not seem to be reproducible.
I get this regularly on
Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
3.10-rc5 did not exhibit this (nor any other kernel recently tried,
including most -rc's). Does not seem to be reproducible.
[ 568.834221] [ cut here ]
[ 568.894907] WARNING: at mm/mmap.c:2757
Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
3.10-rc5 did not exhibit this (nor any other kernel recently tried,
including most -rc's). Does not seem to be reproducible.
[ 568.834221] [ cut here ]
[ 568.894907] WARNING: at mm/mmap.c:2757
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
3.10-rc5 did not exhibit this (nor any other kernel recently tried,
including most -rc's). Does not seem to be reproducible.
I get this regularly on
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:32:25AM +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:06:00AM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
Got this in 3.10-rc6 whil testing debian unstable upgrade with aptitude.
3.10-rc5 did not exhibit this (nor any other kernel recently tried,
including most
60 matches
Mail list logo
