>
> No, his oops was a bad inode state while trying to
> release unused NFS client inodes. Different bug :)
>
New development. No oops, but apache eventually crashed with the same
error message 'semget - no space left on device'. So,... either this
was a coincidence (ie, with the kernel
No, his oops was a bad inode state while trying to
release unused NFS client inodes. Different bug :)
New development. No oops, but apache eventually crashed with the same
error message 'semget - no space left on device'. So,... either this
was a coincidence (ie, with the kernel issue)
Henry wrote:
>
> >
> > I wonder why it only affects you. Is the drive which holds
> > your swap partition running in PIO mode? `hdparm' will tell
> > you. If it is, then that could easily cause the page to come
> > unlocked before brw_page() has finished touching the buffer
> > ring. Then
>
> I wonder why it only affects you. Is the drive which holds
> your swap partition running in PIO mode? `hdparm' will tell
> you. If it is, then that could easily cause the page to come
> unlocked before brw_page() has finished touching the buffer
> ring. Then all it takes is a parallel
Henry wrote:
>
> ...
> So far, so good. There has not been a single oops on the two principle
> servers I patched.
>
> uptime1:8:04am up 18:22, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.15, 0.11
> uptime2:8:04am up 18:25, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.20, 0.15
OK,
Henry wrote:
...
So far, so good. There has not been a single oops on the two principle
servers I patched.
uptime1:8:04am up 18:22, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.15, 0.11
uptime2:8:04am up 18:25, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.20, 0.15
OK, that
I wonder why it only affects you. Is the drive which holds
your swap partition running in PIO mode? `hdparm' will tell
you. If it is, then that could easily cause the page to come
unlocked before brw_page() has finished touching the buffer
ring. Then all it takes is a parallel
Henry wrote:
I wonder why it only affects you. Is the drive which holds
your swap partition running in PIO mode? `hdparm' will tell
you. If it is, then that could easily cause the page to come
unlocked before brw_page() has finished touching the buffer
ring. Then all it takes is
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Henry wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > Dual-cpu pentium 233 (intel) with 128MB RAM and more than double that swap.
> >
> > ...
> > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0008
> > c01b4227
> > *pde =
> > Oops:
> >
>
> There does appear to be an SMP race in brw_page() which can cause
> this - end_buffer_io_async() unlocks the page, try_to_free_buffers()
> zaps the buffer_head ring and brw_page() gets a null pointer. But
> gee, it's unlikely unless you have super-fast disks and/or something
> which has a
Henry wrote:
>
> ...
> Dual-cpu pentium 233 (intel) with 128MB RAM and more than double that swap.
>
> ...
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0008
> c01b4227
> *pde =
> Oops:
> CPU:0
> EIP:0010:[]
> Using defaults from ksymoops -t
Henry wrote:
...
Dual-cpu pentium 233 (intel) with 128MB RAM and more than double that swap.
...
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0008
c01b4227
*pde =
Oops:
CPU:0
EIP:0010:[c01b4227]
Using defaults from ksymoops -t
There does appear to be an SMP race in brw_page() which can cause
this - end_buffer_io_async() unlocks the page, try_to_free_buffers()
zaps the buffer_head ring and brw_page() gets a null pointer. But
gee, it's unlikely unless you have super-fast disks and/or something
which has a
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
Henry wrote:
...
Dual-cpu pentium 233 (intel) with 128MB RAM and more than double that swap.
...
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0008
c01b4227
*pde =
Oops:
CPU:0
EIP:
> >
> > FYI, I see a similar problem under 2.4.5, also SMP, although only
> > intermittently. Two oopses are below, from two different, although
> > similarly configured, machines.
>
> [snip]
>
> Sounds very similar. Our servers are all identical (except for RAM).
>
> What's unusual is that
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
>
> > We've noticed the following kernel error since 2.4 (2.4.1-2.4.6).
> > It appears to be swap (kswapd thread specific?) related. The same
> > error is reported on several SMP machines after only a short
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> We've noticed the following kernel error since 2.4 (2.4.1-2.4.6).
> It appears to be swap (kswapd thread specific?) related. The same
> error is reported on several SMP machines after only a short period
> (an hour or less).
FYI, I see a similar
Hello
Presumably this has already been mentioned, but since it seems like an ongoing
thing (I've seen a similar topic discussed at
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/) I thought it wouldn't hurt to provide
more info.
We've noticed the following kernel error since 2.4 (2.4.1-2.4.6). It appears
Hello
Presumably this has already been mentioned, but since it seems like an ongoing
thing (I've seen a similar topic discussed at
http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/) I thought it wouldn't hurt to provide
more info.
We've noticed the following kernel error since 2.4 (2.4.1-2.4.6). It appears
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
We've noticed the following kernel error since 2.4 (2.4.1-2.4.6).
It appears to be swap (kswapd thread specific?) related. The same
error is reported on several SMP machines after only a short period
(an hour or less).
FYI, I see a similar problem
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
We've noticed the following kernel error since 2.4 (2.4.1-2.4.6).
It appears to be swap (kswapd thread specific?) related. The same
error is reported on several SMP machines after only a short period
FYI, I see a similar problem under 2.4.5, also SMP, although only
intermittently. Two oopses are below, from two different, although
similarly configured, machines.
[snip]
Sounds very similar. Our servers are all identical (except for RAM).
What's unusual is that the machines
22 matches
Mail list logo
