From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 09:38:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 09:38:15 -0400 Received: from compsciinn-gw.customer.ALTER.NET ([157.130.84.134]:53635 "EHLO picard.csihq.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 May 2002 09:38:14 -0400 Message-ID: <036901c2025f$0746e2f0$f6de11cc@black> From: "Mike Black" To: "Hugh Dickins" Cc: "linux-kernel" In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: page_alloc bug in 2.4.17-pre8 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 09:37:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oops -- got the wrong version (head was in the wrong kernel space). This occurred on 2.4.19-pre8 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Dickins" To: "Mike Black" Cc: "linux-kernel" Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:12 AM Subject: Re: page_alloc bug in 2.4.17-pre8 > On Thu, 23 May 2002, Mike Black wrote: > > This machine had been up for 2-1/2 days and had run this backup (afio) twice successfully. > > > > Here's line 108 of page_alloc.c: > > if (PageLRU(page)) > > BUG(); > > > > Hopefully this doesn't indicate a CPU problem? The power supply on this thing blew Saturday but has run OK until now. > > > > May 22 00:51:01 picard kernel: kernel BUG at page_alloc.c:108! > > May 22 00:51:01 picard kernel: invalid operand: 0000 > > May 22 00:51:01 picard kernel: CPU: 1 > > May 22 00:51:01 picard kernel: EIP: 0010:[swap_duplicate+82/192] Not tainted > > There were quite a number of reports of those PageLRU BUGs on 2.4.17. > No idea what fixed them, but 2.4.18 (and 2.4.19-pre) has seemed free > of them (Ben LaHaise made a plausible change, but closer analysis > suggested it couldn't really be the fix). Suggest you upgrade. > > Your oops report, by the way, must have been using the wrong System.map: > page_alloc.c:108 is in __free_pages_ok(), swap_duplicate() is over in > swapfile.c. But no matter, page_alloc.c:108 identifies it well enough. > > Hugh >