From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266812AbUGLMi3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266813AbUGLMi3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:38:29 -0400 Received: from pxy5allmi.all.mi.charter.com ([24.247.15.44]:15839 "EHLO proxy5-grandhaven.chartermi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266812AbUGLMiX (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:38:23 -0400 Message-ID: <40F28628.2030303@quark.didntduck.org> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:38:00 -0400 From: Brian Gerst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040625 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Juhl CC: Brian Gerst , Linux-Kernel mailing list , Grzegorz Kulewski , Con Kolivas , Matthias Andree , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: post 2.6.7 BK change breaks Java? References: <40EEB1B2.7000800@kolivas.org> <8A43C34093B3D5119F7D0004AC56F4BC082C7F9D@difpst1a.dif.dk> <40F20372.9000205@quark.didntduck.org> <40F20C23.9050705@quark.didntduck.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Charter-Information: X-Charter-Scan: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jesper Juhl wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Brian Gerst wrote: > > >>Brian Gerst wrote: >> >>>Jesper Juhl wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Jesper Juhl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Jesper Juhl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Jesper Juhl wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Con Kolivas wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>but I suspect it's one of those possibly interfering. Looking at the >>>>>>>>>patches in question I have no idea how they could do it. I guess >>>>>>>>>if you >>>>>>>>>can try backing them out it would be helpful. Here are links to the >>>>>>>>>patches in question. >>>>>>>>>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.7/2.6.7-ck5/split-out/1100_ip_tabl >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>es.patch >>>>>>>>>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.7/2.6.7-ck5/split-out/1105_CAN-200 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>4-0497.patch >>>>>>>>>http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/2.6/2.6.7/2.6.7-ck5/split-out/1110_proc.pa >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>tch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks Con, I'll try playing with those tomorrow (got no time >>>>>>>>tonight), >>>>>>>>and report back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ok, got them all 3 backed out of 2.6.7-mm7 , but that doesn't change a >>>>>>>thing. The JVM still dies when I try to run eclipse. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I can run Eclipse without any problems on 2.6.7-bk20-ck5 + few other >>>>>>not >>>>>>related patches. Maybe try using non -mm? Try 2.6.7-bk20 and then try >>>>>>reverting some patches. Maybe there is some other problem in -mm that >>>>>>gives similar results? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>with plain 2.6.7-bk20 I see the issue, same with 2.6.7-mm7. Reverting >>>>>http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@1.1743 from -mm7 fixes the >>>>>issue. I'm currently building 2.6.7-bk20 minus that cset and I'll report >>>>>back on the results of that in a few minutes. >>>>> >>>> >>>>2.6.7-bk20 minus the cset works. >>>> >>>>Testing with 2.6.8-rc1 and backing out one or both of the changes in the >>>>cset I get these results : >>>>2.6.8-rc1 - vanilla - >>>>breaks Java >>>>2.6.8-rc1-jju1 - both changes backed out - works >>>>2.6.8-rc1-jju2 - only first change (sys_rt_sigsuspend) applied - works >>>>2.6.8-rc1-jju3 - only second change (sys_sigaltstack) applied - >>>>breaks Java >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Jesper Juhl >>> >>> >>>Looks like a GCC (gcc version 3.4.1 20040702 (Red Hat Linux 3.4.1-2)) >>>screwup: >>> >>>sys_sigaltstack: >>> movl 4(%esp), %eax >>> movl 8(%esp), %edx >>> movl 56(%esp), %ecx >>> jmp do_sigaltstack >>> >>>The offsets should be 4 more, to account for the return address on the >>>stack. >> >>Nevermind, I should have looked more carefully. The offsets are fine in >>my example. What version of GCC are you using? >> > > gcc 3.4.0 > > I got a patch from Linus yesterday that seems to fix it nicely on top of > 2.6.8-rc1. I guess he has his reasons for not CC'ing it to the list, but > I've given him feedback on my testing of it, so I hope it'll surface as > soon as he's happy with it. I see Linus commited a changeset that avoids a tailcall from this function, which messes up the stack if CONFIG_REGPARM=n. Specifically, it clobbers %edx in the pt_regs image: sys_sigaltstack: movl 56(%esp), %eax movl %eax, 12(%esp) jmp do_sigaltstack -- Brian Gerst