From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m09LlCOg024856 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:47:12 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m09LlBY1157280 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:47:12 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m09Lkh1j029906 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:46:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:47:07 -0800 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: [BUG] at mm/slab.c:3320 Message-ID: <20080109214707.GA26941@us.ibm.com> References: <20080103155046.GA7092@skywalker> <20080107102301.db52ab64.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080108104016.4fa5a4f3.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080109065015.GG7602@us.ibm.com> <20080109185859.GD11852@skywalker> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm@kvack.org, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, bob.picco@hp.com, mel@skynet.ie List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org