Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 21:24 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
Yes, i can reproduce this at will, no local modifications, my system
is amd dual x86_64, i have attached my .config to the first email of
this thread, and also mentioned that some CONFIG_DEBUG_ options are
set, including on
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 21:24 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Yes, i can reproduce this at will, no local modifications, my system
> is amd dual x86_64, i have attached my .config to the first email of
> this thread, and also mentioned that some CONFIG_DEBUG_ options are
> set, including one related to sl
On 4/28/06, Pekka J Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/27/06, Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With 2.6.17-rc3 I'm running into something which seems as a bug related
> > > to kmem_cache. Doing some allocations/deallocations from a kmem_cache and
> > > later attempting to destroy i
On 4/27/06, Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With 2.6.17-rc3 I'm running into something which seems as a bug related
> > > to kmem_cache. Doing some allocations/deallocations from a kmem_cache and
> > > later attempting to destroy it yields the following message and trace
On Thu, 27 Apr
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Shirley Ma wrote:
> I hit a similar problem while calling kzalloc(). it happened on
> linux-2.6.17-rc1 + ppc64.
>
> kernel BUG in __cache_alloc_node at mm/slab.c:2934!
> which is
> BUG_ON(slabp->inuse == cachep->num);
More entries were added to a slab than allowed?
I hit a similar problem while calling
kzalloc(). it happened on linux-2.6.17-rc1 + ppc64.
kernel BUG in __cache_alloc_node at
mm/slab.c:2934!
which is
BUG_ON(slabp->inuse
== cachep->num);
3:mon> expr
cpu 0x3: Vector: 700 (Program Check)
at [c000dac87870]
pc: c00b75b0:
On 4/27/06, Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With 2.6.17-rc3 I'm running into something which seems as a bug related
> > > to kmem_cache. Doing some allocations/deallocations from a kmem_cache and
> > > later attempting to destroy it yields the following message and trace
On Thu, 27 Apr
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 4/27/06, Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With 2.6.17-rc3 I'm running into something which seems as a bug related
> > to kmem_cache. Doing some allocations/deallocations from a kmem_cache and
> > later attempting to destroy it yields the follo
On 4/27/06, Or Gerlitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With 2.6.17-rc3 I'm running into something which seems as a bug related
> to kmem_cache. Doing some allocations/deallocations from a kmem_cache and
> later attempting to destroy it yields the following message and trace
Tested on 2.6.16.7 and wor
