Nick Piggin wrote:
This one possibly looks like a problem with remote memory allocation
or memory hotplug or something like that. I'll do a bit of code
review
Removed linux-scsi from the cc list.
I can recreate this issue with today's next tree. Nick let me know if
you need any other
Hi Sachin,
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 14:00 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
This one possibly looks like a problem with remote memory allocation
or memory hotplug or something like that. I'll do a bit of code
review
Removed linux-scsi from the cc list.
I can recreate this
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 15:24 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Pekka Enberg wrote:
I wasn't able to find your .config in this thread. Can you please post
it?
Config attached.
Thanks! Can you please enable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST, and
decrease CONFIG_NR_CPUS=1024 to, say, 32 and
Hi Sachin,
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 12:59 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 15:24 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Pekka Enberg wrote:
I wasn't able to find your .config in this thread. Can you please post
it?
Config attached.
Thanks! Can you please enable
Pekka Enberg wrote:
Thanks! Can you please enable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM, CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST, and
decrease CONFIG_NR_CPUS=1024 to, say, 32 and retest? Perhaps we'll get a
some clues to what's going on here.
Furthermore, you might want to test with CONFIG_PPC_4K_PAGES and
CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES to
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:56:13PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:57:16 +0200 Nick Piggin npig...@suse.de wrote:
Hmm, I think (hope) your problems were fixed with the recent memory
coruption bug fix for SLQB. (if not, let me know)
This one possibly
On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:59:18 +0200 Nick Piggin npig...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 03:56:13PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:57:16 +0200 Nick Piggin npig...@suse.de wrote:
Hmm, I think (hope) your problems were fixed with the recent memory
Hi Nick,
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:03:52 +1000 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
This is what I have been getting for the last few days:
bisected into the net changes, I will follow up there, sorry.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwells...@canb.auug.org.au
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 04:52:45PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Nick,
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:03:52 +1000 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
This is what I have been getting for the last few days:
bisected into the net changes, I will follow up there, sorry.
No
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 [#1]
SMP
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:16:10PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Today's Next tree failed to boot on a Power6 box with following BUG :
This doesn't actually appear to be a SCSI bug ... it looks like SCSI tried
to allocate memory and things went wrong in the memory allocator:
[c000c7d038b0]
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:16:10PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Today's Next tree failed to boot on a Power6 box with following BUG :
This doesn't actually appear to be a SCSI bug ... it looks like SCSI tried
to allocate memory and things went wrong in the memory
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:34:07PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:16:10PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Today's Next tree failed to boot on a Power6 box with following BUG :
This doesn't actually appear to be a SCSI bug ... it looks like SCSI tried
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Default one. SLQB
CONFIG_SLQB_ALLOCATOR=y
CONFIG_SLQB=y
Page size is 64K with Config DEBUG_PAGEALLOC set.
CONFIG_PPC_HAS_HASH_64K=y
CONFIG_PPC_64K_PAGES=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y
Hm. We've seen some similar problems at Intel while doing database
performance
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:49:55PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Yeah so the problem seems to be with SLQB. I was able to boot Next 11 with
SLUB on the same machine.
Is it 100% reproducable with SLQB? Our errors were fairly hard to tickle
on demand.
--
Matthew Wilcox
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:49:55PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Yeah so the problem seems to be with SLQB. I was able to boot Next 11 with
SLUB on the same machine.
Is it 100% reproducable with SLQB? Our errors were fairly hard to tickle
on demand.
Yes. I am
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 06:21:35AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:34:07PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:16:10PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Today's Next tree failed to boot on a Power6 box with following BUG :
This
Hi Nick,
On Tue, 12 May 2009 06:57:16 +0200 Nick Piggin npig...@suse.de wrote:
Hmm, I think (hope) your problems were fixed with the recent memory
coruption bug fix for SLQB. (if not, let me know)
This one possibly looks like a problem with remote memory allocation
or memory hotplug or
18 matches
Mail list logo
