Re: strange stuff in dmesg

[BuraphaLinux Server <buraphalinuxserver@gmail.com>]

On 12/24/09, Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/24/09 02:03, BuraphaLinux Server wrote:
>> On my Dell OptiPlex 330 machines with kernel 2.6.32.2 I get a strange
>> WARNING.  Do I need to worry?  Here is the warning:
>>
>> [    0.000000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [    0.000000] WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:1805
>> __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b6/0x730()
>> [    0.000000] Hardware name: OptiPlex 330
>> [    0.000000] Modules linked in:
>> [    0.000000] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.32.2 #1
>> [    0.000000] Call Trace:
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff8108e806>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b6/0x730
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff81043f68>] warn_slowpath_common+0x78/0xd0
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff81043fcf>] warn_slowpath_null+0xf/0x20
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff8108e806>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b6/0x730
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff810b4e28>] alloc_pages_current+0x78/0xf0
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff8108da69>] __get_free_pages+0x9/0x50
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff810bb912>] __kmalloc+0x112/0x120
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff8146e773>] vgacon_scrollback_startup+0x13/0x70
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff811d29b3>] vgacon_startup+0x2a3/0x420
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff816fc556>] con_init+0x1b/0x230
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff816fba00>] console_init+0x22/0x42
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff816d4b8f>] start_kernel+0x240/0x3be
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff816d4289>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x99/0xb9
>> [    0.000000]  [<ffffffff816d4389>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xe0/0xf2
>> [    0.000000] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
>>
>> I also got it on 2.6.31.9, but had waited to ask hoping 2.6.32.2 would fix
>> it.
>>
>> Attached is my config
>>
> was there a kernel that did not do this?
> if so can you try a bisect on this?
>
> Justin P. Mattock
>

It took a while, but I have verified that 2.6.30.10 works without any
message, and 2.6.31 has the error message (but otherwise seems to run
ok).  The hex codes are different, but the function names match and
are in the same places.

Does it have to be git bisect, or will trying the 2.6.31rc[1-9] be
enough instead?  The Documentation/BUG-HUNTING does not give detailed
enough instructions for me to do the bisect thing.