Re: [PROBLEM] 2.6.22-rc2 panics on x86-64 with slub

[Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@yahoo.com.au>]

--- Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote:
[...]
> Yup. compile with
> 
> CONFIG_NUMA
> 
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> 
> CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOCS

(All the tests in this email was conducted on top of your patch)

Yup done that. The resulting kernel (without CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y) is quite
stable; passed a few iterations of kernel compile tests successfully.

> and then try to boot without slub_debug.

I guess you mean with CONFIG_SLUB_CONFIG=y? If so, I built another kernel with
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y (plus all of the above) & tested it. It panics by default,
but with slub_nomerge it works just fine (tested under moderate load).

(the panic message produced by CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y was the exact same call
trace as my very first email in this email thread with slightly different
address on a couple of functions, but rest remains the same)

I'm personally very happy that slub works stably without slub debug options,
because that's what I'd run in a production env. Thanks to your patch, slub is
quite stable without the slub debug for me :-)). But it'd to nice to have a
working slub debug for test env., as you'd undoubtedly be aware of, of course
:-). Just my humble opinion.

> If that fails then boot with slub_nomerge

Yup, I had to use slub_nomerge; without that CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y kernel
panics. (I haven't tested the UP case though. I did try nosmp & maxcpus=1, but
they had no effect on the panic. Do you want me to test UP case for
CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG=y without slub_nomerge?)

Thanks



      ___________________________________________________________________________________
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in Australia?  Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/aunz/lifestyle/answers/y7ans-babp_reg.html