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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Compiled slub with SMP & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. No luck. It still hangs 
> solid after the second spinlock lockup call trace.

hm. This suggests that the spinlock got corrupted - otherwise lockdep 
would have complained about the lockup before the spinlock-debug code 
had its chance.

> Surprisingly, with CONFIG_SMP=n, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING produces this 
> with slub (then hangs solid):

yes - PROVE_LOCKING reactivates spinlocks even on UP. At least this 
suggests that you'd have gotten the hang even with maxcpus=1 - i.e. the 
spinlock corruption is not caused by some genuine SMP race.

furthermore, PROVE_LOCKING also turns on DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, so we now 
know that it's most likely not use-after-free type of corruption.

	Ingo
-
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/