From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com (mail-pd0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3539B6B0038 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 14:07:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pdbop1 with SMTP id op1so115323126pdb.2 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com. [141.146.126.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ht3si10613261pdb.137.2015.03.20.11.05.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <550C6151.8070803@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:05:05 -0600 From: David Ahern MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 4.0.0-rc4: panic in free_block References: <550C37C9.2060200@oracle.com> <550C5078.8040402@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds , linux-mm Cc: "David S. Miller" , LKML , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org On 3/20/15 10:58 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > That said, SLAB is probably also almost unheard of in high-CPU > configurations, since slub has all the magical unlocked lists etc for > scalability. So maybe it's a generic SLAB bug, and nobody with lots of > CPU's is testing SLAB. > Evidently, it is a well known problem internally that goes back to at least 2.6.39. To this point I have not paid attention to the allocators. At what point is SLUB considered stable for large systems? Is 2.6.39 stable? As for SLAB it is not clear if this is a sparc only problem. Perhaps the config should have a warning? It looks like SLAB is still the default for most arch. DaveM: do you mind if I submit a patch to change the default for sparc to SLUB? Now that the monster is unleashed, off to other problems... Thanks, David -- 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