Re: Slab panic on 2.6.19-rc3-git5 (-git4 was OK)

[Nick Piggin]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:57:48 -0700
> "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > -git4 was fine. -git5 is broken (on PPC64 blade)
> >
> > As -rc2-mm2 seemed fine on this box, I'm guessing it's something
> > that didn't go via Andrew ;-( Looks like it might be something
> > JFS or slab specific. Bigger PPC64 box with different config
> > was OK though.
> >
> > Full log is here: http://test.kernel.org/abat/59046/debug/console.log
> > Good -git4 run: http://test.kernel.org/abat/58997/debug/console.log
> >
> > kernel BUG in cache_grow at mm/slab.c:2705!
>
>
> This?
>
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c~__vmalloc_area_node-fix
> +++ a/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -428,7 +428,8 @@ void *__vmalloc_area_node(struct vm_stru
>  	area->nr_pages = nr_pages;
>  	/* Please note that the recursion is strictly bounded. */
>  	if (array_size > PAGE_SIZE) {
> -		pages = __vmalloc_node(array_size, gfp_mask, PAGE_KERNEL, node);
> +		pages = __vmalloc_node(array_size, gfp_mask & ~__GFP_HIGHMEM,
> +					PAGE_KERNEL, node);
>  		area->flags |= VM_VPAGES;
>  	} else {
>  		pages = kmalloc_node(array_size,

Don't you actually *want* the page array to be allocated from highmem? So the
gfp mask here should be just for whether we're allowed to sleep / reclaim (ie
gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_DMA|__GFP_DMA32) | (__GFP_HIGHMEM))?

Slab allocations should be (gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_DMA|__GFP_DMA32|__GFP_HIGHMEM)),
which you could mask in __get_vm_area_node

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/