From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58F74B7082 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 01:48:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from e28smtp09.in.ibm.com (e28smtp09.in.ibm.com [59.145.155.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e28smtp09.in.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B42F4DDD0C for ; Sat, 6 Jun 2009 01:48:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28smtp09.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n55F5uZ4016801 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:35:56 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n55Fmp232330722 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:18:51 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n55FmpRF019733 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:18:51 +0530 Message-ID: <4A293E62.4090700@in.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:18:50 +0530 From: Sachin Sant MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [OOPS] hugetlbfs tests with 2.6.30-rc8-git1 References: <4A290195.3080807@in.ibm.com> <20090605150429.GA29614@csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20090605150429.GA29614@csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Mel Gorman wrote: > That patch fixes a different problem. The assertion shouldn't have been > made for hugetlbfs regions. I can only assume we are not triggering the > same problem. According to your .config, DEBUG_VM is not even set so > this is some other problem. > > Do you know what line triggered the problem? Eric Munson is currently > investigating this as I'm chasing down another bug but my understanding is that > right now he can't reproduce the problem. How reproducible is this for you? I cannot recreate this consistently. Sometimes i am able to recreate , but it's random. I have seen this problem on 2 out of 4 power boxes. Here are last few lines from the hugetlbfs test run. get_huge_pages (32): PASS get_huge_pages (64): PASS quota (32): PASS quota (64): PASS counters (32): PASS counters (64): PASS mmap-gettest 10 20 (32): PASS mmap-gettest 10 20 (64): PASS mmap-cow 19 20 (32): PASS mmap-cow 19 20 (64): PASS set shmmax limit to 335544320 shm-fork 10 10 (32): PASS shm-fork 10 10 (64): PASS shm-fork 10 20 (32): shm-fork was executed when the oops occurred. Thanks -Sachin -- --------------------------------- Sachin Sant IBM Linux Technology Center India Systems and Technology Labs Bangalore, India ---------------------------------