From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47F41AD3.2020809@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:46:27 -0400 From: Tomas Kalibera MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <47ED5DE3.60202@domain.hid> <47F17B32.7070505@domain.hid> <18417.52630.8850.939898@domain.hid> <47F23E9E.7060801@domain.hid> <2ff1a98a0804010703v7090d7dbhbbff114a51badd6d@domain.hid> <47F258AD.3000103@domain.hid> <2ff1a98a0804010858kb009b37y764667cf1fa56c6@domain.hid> <47F2A7CC.4050301@domain.hid> <2ff1a98a0804020142r55bab884x8896c8191f8580d5@domain.hid> <47F3A00E.1020700@domain.hid> <2ff1a98a0804020807t4d2cc718x493ae3c48e9a042f@domain.hid> <47F3E0B3.2030805@domain.hid> <18419.57862.758026.458669@domain.hid> <47F3FE7E.6020302@domain.hid> <18420.2520.32895.319766@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <18420.2520.32895.319766@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Kernel crash with Xenomai (caused by fork?) List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai-core Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Of course, we are looking for all bugs. But please tell me: do you get > the lock-up even before fork is called ? If not, could you verify that > at least some Xenomai programs run correctly, for instance latency ? > The lock up with patch 5 happens before fork is called, but after a real-time task is started by the program. I don't know better now - I'd have to add more logging. If I run in strace, the lock-up does not happen. Thinking about that, it can be a bug in my program. If I understand the concept of Xenomai correctly, I can just write a real-time task that would starve the Linux kernel indefinitely, correct ? My program definitely does have bugs. So I'll do more debugging. The lock-up does NOT happen with latency. But, the bug in the kernel without patch 5 (the one that lead to a stack trac, after call to fork), did not appear in latency, either. > Looking at the code, I think I found a bug, but I doubt it could cause a > lockup. The definition of VM_PINNED in include/linux/mm.h collides with > another bit used by Linux, so this defintion should be changed from: > #define VM_PINNED 0x08000000 > to: > #define VM_PINNED 0x10000000 > > I will now try, if possible, to reproduce the bug on a x86 box of mine > and will keep you informed. > Thanks ! I'll indeed build kernel with patch 6, test again, and test my application. Tomas