Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm1

[Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
>> "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@mbligh.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The x86_65 panic in LTP has changed a bit. Looks more useful now.
>>>>> Possibly just unrelated new stuff. Possibly we got lucky.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are you doing to make this happen?
>>>
>>>
>>> runalltests on LTP
>>>
>>
>>
>> We have to get to the bottom of this - there's a shadow over about 500
>> patches and we don't know which.
> 
> 
> We did do one chop, and concluded it wasn't the x86_64 patches.
> 
>> iirc I tried to reproduce this a couple of weeks back and failed.
> 
> 
> It looks like a different panic to me. It was a double-fault before.
> 
>> Are you able to narrow it down to a particular LTP test?  It was
>> mtest01 or
>> something like that?  Perhaps we can identify a particular command line
>> which triggers the fault in a standalone fashion?
> 
> 
> I can't do much from here - it's running on an IBM machine. Have to beg
> Andy, or one of the other IBMers, for help.
> 
>> And why can't I make it happen?  Perhaps it's a memory initialisation
>> problem, and it only happens to hit in that stage of LTP because that's
>> when you started doing page reclaim, or something? 
> 
> 
> It consistently happens on -mm, and not mainline, flicking back and
> forth over time. So if you mean h/w mem init, I don't think so. if you
> mena some patch in -mm, then yes.
> 
>>  Perhaps just try putting a heap of memory pressure on the machine, 
> 
>> see what that does?
> 
> Yes, the other stuff might not be swapping.
> 
>> Being unable to reproduce it and not having a theory to go on leaves us
>> kinda stuck.  Help, please?
> 
> 
> Yeah, we have a sniff-testing mechanism that works well. However,
> drill-down still requires significant amounts of human intervention.
> The next gen of stuff should help do more intelligent stuff, but we're
> kind of stuck with human-ness for now.

I am sure I got half way through diagnosing this one.  We were context
switching to a bad thread.  I've been meaning to get back to it.  Its at
the top of my list for the AM.

-apw