From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ausmtp05.au.ibm.com (ausmtp05.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ausmtp05.au.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D23DDEA2 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:26:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh904.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.202]) by ausmtp05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0FBRVxX2519216 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:27:31 -0100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.237]) by sd0208e0.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.2) with ESMTP id l0ENTDlx249224 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:29:18 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l0ENPhAn003602 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:25:44 +1100 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:43:48 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Sonny Rao Subject: Re: [Libhugetlbfs-devel] 2.6.19: kernel BUG in hugepd_page at arch/powerpc/mm/hugetlbpage.c:58! Message-ID: <20070112224348.GA18201@localhost.localdomain> 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, libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, nacc@us.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 03:42:50PM -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. I used "PASS (inconclusive)" to mean: you're probably ok, but the bug in question is non-deterministically triggered, so maybe we just got lucky. This testcase attempts to trigger a bunch of times (50?), but the conditions are sufficiently dicey that a false PASS is still a realistic possibility (I've seen it happen, but not often). Some other tests (e.g. alloc-instantiate-race) are technically non-deterministic too, but I've managed to device trigger conditions which are reliable in practice, those tests report plain PASS. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson