From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264870AbUEPXxQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 19:53:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264868AbUEPXxQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 19:53:16 -0400 Received: from ppp-217-133-42-200.cust-adsl.tiscali.it ([217.133.42.200]:42968 "EHLO dualathlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264870AbUEPXxM (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2004 19:53:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 01:53:10 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Steven Cole Cc: Andrew Morton , torvalds@osdl.org, adi@bitmover.com, scole@lanl.gov, support@bitmover.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 1352 NUL bytes at the end of a page? (was Re: Assertion `s && s->tree' failed: The saga continues.) Message-ID: <20040516235310.GZ3044@dualathlon.random> References: <200405132232.01484.elenstev@mesatop.com> <200405161519.03834.elenstev@mesatop.com> <20040516142916.7d07c9f3.akpm@osdl.org> <200405161611.17688.elenstev@mesatop.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200405161611.17688.elenstev@mesatop.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 13D9 8355 295F 4823 7C49 C012 DFA1 686E 68B9 CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 CC A0 71 81 F4 A0 63 AC C0 4B 81 1D 8C 15 C8 E5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:11:16PM -0600, Steven Cole wrote: > On Sunday 16 May 2004 03:29 pm, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Steven Cole wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, although the regression for my particular machine for this > > > particular load may be interesting, the good news is that I've seen > > > none of the failures which started this whole thread, which are relatively > > > easily reproduceable with PREEMPT set. > > > > So... would it be correct to say that with CONFIG_PREEMPT, ppp or its > > underlying driver stack > > > > a) screws up the connection and hangs and > > > > b) scribbles on pagecache? > > > > Because if so, the same will probably happen on SMP. > > > Perhaps someone has the hardware to test this. > > To summarize my experience with the past 24 hours of testing: > Without PREEMPT , everything is rock solid. so we've two separate problems: the first is the ppp instability with preempt, the second is a regresion in the vm heuristics between 2.6.3 and 2.6.5. > and I (cringes at the thought) may repeat some bk pulls with > PREEMPT set. I've heard other reports of preempt being unstable with some sound stuff, just in case are you using sound drivers at all during that workload?