From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935464AbYCFSRz (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:17:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753321AbYCFSRq (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:17:46 -0500 Received: from g5t0007.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.44]:28348 "EHLO g5t0007.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbYCFSRo (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:17:44 -0500 Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc4 hang/softlockups after freeing hugepages From: Lee Schermerhorn To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: linux-kernel , linux-mm , Adam Litke , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Eric Whitney In-Reply-To: <20080306175311.GA14567@us.ibm.com> References: <1204824183.5294.62.camel@localhost> <20080306175311.GA14567@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: HP/OSLO Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:17:52 -0500 Message-Id: <1204827473.5294.77.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 09:53 -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 06.03.2008 [12:23:03 -0500], Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > Test platform: HP Proliant DL585 server - 4 socket, dual core AMD with > > 32GB memory. > > > > I first saw this on 25-rc2-mm1 with Mel's zonelist patches, while > > investigating the interaction of hugepages and cpusets. Thinking that > > it might be caused by the zonelist patches, I went back to 25-rc2-mm1 > > w/o the patches and saw the same thing. It sometimes takes a while for > > the softlockups to start appearing, and I wanted to find a fairly > > minimal duplicator. Meanwhile 25-rc3 and rc4 have come out, so I tried > > the latest upstream kernel and see the same thing. > > So, does 2.6.25-rc2 show the problem? Or was it something introduced in > that -mm which has since gone upstream? > I don't recall that I went back that far. I'll try Ingo's patch [later, after an obligatory meeting...] and let you know. > > I took a look at the recent hugetlb patches from Adam and Nish, but none > > seemed to address this symptom. I don't think I'm dealing with surplus > > pages here. > > If /proc/sys/vm/nr_overcommit_hugepages = 0, then no, you're not. I didn't set that, so it should have been zero. Lee