Re: x86-64 bad pmds in 2.6.11.6 II

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:28:58PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
 > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:08:39PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:33:59PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
 > >  > * Christopher Warner (chris@servertogo.com) wrote:
 > >  > > Actually I am testing your patches. Its just going to take some time.
 > >  > > The problem occurs under severe load and I'm in the process of doing
 > >  > > load testing this for an inhouse app this week. Soon as i'm able to send
 > >  > > debug information I will.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Same here.  I've just never found a way to trigger other than wait.
 > > 
 > > *nod*, the current test-kernel update for Fedora also has your
 > > debugging patches, but none of the users have hit them (or reported
 > > them) yet.
 > 
 > The second version with the WARN_ON? If not please update to that one.

I lost track.. Here's what I included..

--- linux-2.6.11/mm/memory.c~	2005-04-27 13:37:20.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.11/mm/memory.c	2005-04-27 13:37:45.000000000 -0400
@@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ static inline void clear_pmd_range(struc
 	if (pmd_none(*pmd))
 		return;
 	if (unlikely(pmd_bad(*pmd))) {
+		printk("%s:%d: ", current->comm, current->pid);
 		pmd_ERROR(*pmd);
 		pmd_clear(pmd);
 		return;
@@ -113,6 +114,7 @@ static inline void clear_pud_range(struc
 	unsigned long addr = start, next;
 	pmd_t *pmd, *__pmd;
 
+	WARN_ON(start == end);
 	if (pud_none(*pud))
 		return;
 	if (unlikely(pud_bad(*pud))) {



		Dave