On Monday 06 March 2006 9:11, Blaisorblade wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 17:27, Anthony Brock wrote:
> In the mean time, we've experienced a second crash with the
> 2.6.15.1-bs1 kernel. It looks to be very similar to the previous crash.
> Only, in this case, I issued the command "uml_mconsole www-prod-1 sysrq
> s" in preparation for a backup (after issuing a "uml_mconsole $1 stop"
> command).
It's a particular scenario, and I've been doubtly about it, but
indeed it seems that it's safe (at least by design).
I apologize. However, I'm having difficulty understanding your meaning here.
> Mem-info:
> DMA per-cpu:
> cpu 0 hot: low 0, high 18, batch 3 used:2
> cpu 0 cold: low 0, high 6, batch 1 used:5
> DMA32 per-cpu: empty
> Normal per-cpu: empty
> HighMem per-cpu: empty
> Free pages: 376kB (0kB HighMem)
> Active:2985 inactive:8684 dirty:4 writeback:0 unstable:0 free:94
> slab:3428 mapped:933 pagetables:48
> DMA free:376kB min:1024kB low:1280kB high:1536kB active:11940kB
> inactive:34736kB present:65536kB pages_scanned:0 all_unreclaimable?
> no
> lowmem_reserve[]: 0 0 0 0
There are 376kB of free pages, so it's strange that it can't satisfy
this request.
I agree. However, this is the only instance where we've been able to
reproduce a crash with a non-bs2 patched kernel. Other than this, the
bs1 patches have been very stable.
What can we do to further diagnose this? Alternatively, should we try a
different guest kernel version or set of patches?
Tony
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
