On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:14:10AM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
I can't really work it out. It seems to be the kmem_cache_cache which has
a problem, but there have already been lots of caches created and even
this samw cache_node already used right beforehand with no problem.
Nick Piggin wrote:
I was able to boot yesterday's next (20090611) on this machine. Not sure
Still with SLQB? With debug options turned on?
Ah .. spoke too soon. The kernel was not compiled with SLQB. Sorry
about the confusion. I can't seem to select SLQB as the slab
allocator.
Thanks
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:38:50PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
I was able to boot yesterday's next (20090611) on this machine. Not sure
Still with SLQB? With debug options turned on?
Ah .. spoke too soon. The kernel was not compiled with SLQB. Sorry
about the
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:21 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:38:50PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
I was able to boot yesterday's next (20090611) on this machine. Not sure
Still with SLQB? With debug options turned on?
Ah .. spoke too
Hi Pekka,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:25:39 +0300 Pekka Enberg penb...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
Hmm, SLQB in my for-next branch. Stephen, is slab.git dropped from
linux-next or something?
Yesterday (next-20090611) the slab tree for linux-next had only one
commit in it (SLUB: Out-of-memory
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 18:35 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Pekka,
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:25:39 +0300 Pekka Enberg penb...@cs.helsinki.fi
wrote:
Hmm, SLQB in my for-next branch. Stephen, is slab.git dropped from
linux-next or something?
Yesterday (next-20090611) the slab tree for
Nick Piggin wrote:
I can't really work it out. It seems to be the kmem_cache_cache which has
a problem, but there have already been lots of caches created and even
this samw cache_node already used right beforehand with no problem.
Unless a CPU or node comes up or something right at this point
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 05:42:14PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Pekka J Enberg wrote:
Hi Sachin,
__slab_alloc_page: nid=2, cache_node=c000de01ba00,
cache_list=c000de01ba00
__slab_alloc_page: nid=2, cache_node=c000de01bd00,
cache_list=c000de01bd00
__slab_alloc_page: nid=2,
Pekka J Enberg wrote:
Hi Sachin,
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sachin Sant wrote:
I can still recreate this bug on a Power 6 hardware with today's next tree.
I can recreate this problem at will.
Let me know if i can help in debugging this problem.
Can you please reproduce the issue with this
Hi Sachin,
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sachin Sant wrote:
I can still recreate this bug on a Power 6 hardware with today's next tree.
I can recreate this problem at will.
Let me know if i can help in debugging this problem.
Can you please reproduce the issue with this debugging patch applied and
Sachin Sant wrote:
Today's Next tree failed to boot on a Power6 box with following BUG :
BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#1, modprobe/63
Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0xc994838
Faulting instruction address: 0xc035f5a8
Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig:
11 matches
Mail list logo
