From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e1.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD14DDDFAB for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:12:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0CLCg6O005726 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:12:42 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id l0CLC89I216050 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:12:08 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l0CLC7Ac023073 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:12:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:12:06 -0800 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Sonny Rao Subject: Re: 2.6.19: kernel BUG in hugepd_page at arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c:58! Message-ID: <20070112211206.GD4982@us.ibm.com> References: <20070112195703.GA1826@kevlar.boston.burdell.org> <1168632510.12413.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070112204250.GA2290@kevlar.boston.burdell.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070112204250.GA2290@kevlar.boston.burdell.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, dwg@au1.ibm.com, libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 12.01.2007 [15:42:50 -0500], Sonny Rao wrote: > On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 02:08:30PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 14:57 -0500, Sonny Rao wrote: > > > (Apologies if this is a re-post) > > > > > > Hi, I was running 2.6.19 and running some benchmarks using > > > libhugetlbfs (1.0.1) and I can fairly reliably trigger this bug: > > > > Is this triggered by a libhugetlbfs test case? If so, which one? > > Ok so the testsuite all passed except for "slbpacaflush" which said > "PASS (inconclusive)" ... not sure if that is expected or not. Should be fine. Thanks, Nish -- Nishanth Aravamudan IBM Linux Technology Center