Re: [BUG] at mm/slab.c:3320

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 09.01.2008 [11:23:59 -0800], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> > kernel BUG at mm/slab.c:3323!
> 
> That is 
> 
>         l3 = cachep->nodelists[nodeid];
>         BUG_ON(!l3);
> 
> retry:
>         check_irq_off();
>         ^^^^ this statment?
> 
> or the BUG_ON(!l3)?

Given that Aneesh's mail had this patch-hunk:

@@ -2977,6 +2977,9 @@ retry:
	}
	l3 = cachep->nodelists[node];

+	if (!l3)
+		return NULL;
+
	BUG_ON(ac->avail > 0 || !l3);
	spin_lock(&l3->list_lock);

And given that the original mail has bug at mm/slab.c:3320, I assume we're
still hitting the

BUG_ON(ac->avail > 0 || !l3);

Hrm, shouldn't we remove the !l3 bit from the BUG_ON? But even so, unless for
some reason the BUG_ON is being checked before the if (!l3), are we hitting
(ac->avail > 0)?

Aneesh, maybe split the conditions into two separate BUG_ON()'s to verify?

Thanks,
Nish

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>