From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757199AbbAHRe3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:34:29 -0500 Received: from foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com ([217.140.108.86]:58188 "EHLO foss-mx-na.foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757171AbbAHRe2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:34:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:34:08 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Mark Langsdorf Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3 Message-ID: <20150108173408.GF17290@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <54AE7D53.2020305@redhat.com> <20150108134520.GC14200@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <54AEBE84.6090307@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54AEBE84.6090307@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:29:40PM +0000, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > On 01/08/2015 07:45 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 12:51:31PM +0000, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > >> On 01/05/2015 07:46 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>> It's a day delayed - not because of any particular development issues, > >>> but simply because I was tiling a bathroom yesterday. But rc3 is out > >>> there now, and things have stayed reasonably calm. I really hope that > >>> implies that 3.19 is looking good, but it's equally likely that it's > >>> just that people are still recovering from the holiday season. > >> > >> I'm consistently getting an out of memory killer triggered when > >> compiling the kernel (make -j 16 -s) on a 16 core ARM64 system > >> with 16 GB of memory. This doesn't happen when running a 3.18 > >> kernel. > >> > >> I'm going to start bisecting the failure now, but here's the crash > >> log in case someone can see something obvious in it. > > > Can you disable (transparent) huge pages? I don't have any better at the > > moment suggestion apart from bisecting. > > I didn't have transparent huge pages on. Turning off hugetblfs didn't > change anything. Turning off 64K pages isn't an option because of > firmware constraints. What constraints are these? I thought they could only happen the other way around (4K to 64K). -- Catalin