From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48D91738.40900@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 18:20:08 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <48D8FEE6.3090109@domain.hid> <48D90034.1070602@domain.hid> <48D903AA.5090404@domain.hid> <48D90ADC.2020406@domain.hid> <48D90C78.7090100@domain.hid> <48D90D2E.9010608@domain.hid> <48D90E12.909@domain.hid> <48D9103C.1070304@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <48D9103C.1070304@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Adeos-main] [BUG] vmalloc_sync_one complains about __ipipe_pin_range_globally List-Id: General discussion about Adeos List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: adeos-main , Philippe Gerum Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>>> BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd) != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref)); >>>>> Ok. Maybe printing pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd) and pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref) >>>>> would help ? >>>> I don't see yet where you want to go. As I said, the issue is rare. I >>>> rather think we need to approach it theoretically. >>> Well the bug happens when the two virtual addresses are different (so, I >>> do not think my original remark applies). So, I want to see what the two >>> addresses look like, for instance if they are not 0 or ~0. >> OK, will forward the request. > > Ok. Something else: x86_32 and vmalloc_sync_all use spinlock_irqsave, > so, maybe __ipipe_pin_range_globally should use irqsave as well ? Hmm. In 2.6.24 this lock was not used with irqsave, but in 2.6.26 it is. One would have to check if this is a bug fix or due to other changes. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux