On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:12 +0400 Glauber Costa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I managed to trigger: > > [ 1015.776029] kernel BUG at mm/list_lru.c:92! > > [ 1015.776029] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP > > with Linux next (next-20130607) with https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/17/203 > > on top. > > > > This is obviously BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0) and > > ffffffff81122d0b: 48 85 c0 test %rax,%rax > > ffffffff81122d0e: 49 89 44 24 18 mov %rax,0x18(%r12) > > ffffffff81122d13: 0f 84 87 00 00 00 je ffffffff81122da0 > > <list_lru_walk_node+0x110> > > ffffffff81122d19: 49 83 7c 24 18 00 cmpq $0x0,0x18(%r12) > > ffffffff81122d1f: 78 7b js ffffffff81122d9c > > <list_lru_walk_node+0x10c> > > [...] > > ffffffff81122d9c: 0f 0b ud2 > > > > RAX is -1UL. > Yes, fearing those kind of imbalances, we decided to leave the counter as a > signed quantity > and BUG, instead of an unsigned quantity. > > > > > I assume that the current backtrace is of no use and it would most > > probably be some shrinker which doesn't behave. > > > There are currently 3 users of list_lru in tree: dentries, inodes and xfs. > Assuming you are not using xfs, we are left with dentries and inodes. > > The first thing to do is to find which one of them is misbehaving. You can > try finding > this out by the address of the list_lru, and where it lays in the superblock. > > Once we know each of them is misbehaving, then we'll have to figure out why. The trace says shrink_slab_node->super_cache_scan->prune_icache_sb. So it's inodes? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
