* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-26 8:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
@ 2006-09-26 8:48 ` Ian Campbell
2006-09-27 9:17 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-09-26 12:44 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-09-27 1:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2006-09-26 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Andy Whitcroft, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, Andi Kleen, LKML
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 01:29 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Martin Bligh wrote:
> >
> >> http://test.kernel.org/abat/49037/debug/test.log.0
> >>
> >> AS arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect.o
> >> LD arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect
> >> AS arch/x86_64/boot/setup.o
> >> LD arch/x86_64/boot/setup
> >> AS arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o
> >> CC arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
> >> OBJCOPY arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin
> >> BFD: Warning: Writing section `.data.percpu' to huge (ie negative) file
> >> offset 0x804700c0.
> >> /usr/local/autobench/sources/x86_64-cross/gcc-3.4.0-glibc-2.3.2/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-objcopy:
> >> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin: File truncated
> >> make[2]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin] Error 1
> >> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 2
> >> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
> >> 09/25/06-09:13:48 Build the kernel. Failed rc = 2
> >> 09/25/06-09:13:49 build: kernel build Failed rc = 1
> >>
> >> Wierd. Same box compiled 2.6.18 fine.
> >>
> >
> > Pretty sure this isn't a space problem, as we have just checked space
> > before the build and I've taken no action since then. Someone did
> > mention "tool chain issue" when it was first spotted. Will check with
> > them and see why they thought that.
> >
>
> Does this box have an older version of binutils (2.15?)? If so, it
> might be getting upset over the patch "note-section" in Andi's queue. I
> know it has been a bit problematic, but I don't know if the problems
> manifest in this way.
I've not seen it manifest like this but it would be worth trying Jan's
patch from
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-08/msg01416.html
to see if it helps.
Andi removed an identical patch (from someone else) from his queue due
to http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115629369729911&w=2 We
have had the patch in the Xen tree for a couple of weeks now with no
reported problems.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-26 8:48 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2006-09-27 9:17 ` Andy Whitcroft
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2006-09-27 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, Andi Kleen,
LKML
Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 01:29 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Martin Bligh wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://test.kernel.org/abat/49037/debug/test.log.0
>>>>
>>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect.o
>>>> LD arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect
>>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/setup.o
>>>> LD arch/x86_64/boot/setup
>>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o
>>>> CC arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
>>>> OBJCOPY arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin
>>>> BFD: Warning: Writing section `.data.percpu' to huge (ie negative) file
>>>> offset 0x804700c0.
>>>> /usr/local/autobench/sources/x86_64-cross/gcc-3.4.0-glibc-2.3.2/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-objcopy:
>>>> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin: File truncated
>>>> make[2]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin] Error 1
>>>> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 2
>>>> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
>>>> 09/25/06-09:13:48 Build the kernel. Failed rc = 2
>>>> 09/25/06-09:13:49 build: kernel build Failed rc = 1
>>>>
>>>> Wierd. Same box compiled 2.6.18 fine.
>>>>
>>> Pretty sure this isn't a space problem, as we have just checked space
>>> before the build and I've taken no action since then. Someone did
>>> mention "tool chain issue" when it was first spotted. Will check with
>>> them and see why they thought that.
>>>
>> Does this box have an older version of binutils (2.15?)? If so, it
>> might be getting upset over the patch "note-section" in Andi's queue. I
>> know it has been a bit problematic, but I don't know if the problems
>> manifest in this way.
>
> I've not seen it manifest like this but it would be worth trying Jan's
> patch from
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-08/msg01416.html
> to see if it helps.
>
> Andi removed an identical patch (from someone else) from his queue due
> to http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115629369729911&w=2 We
> have had the patch in the Xen tree for a couple of weeks now with no
> reported problems.
Ok. To confirm, this seems to be a tool chain age issue. This seems to
be triggered by the, x86_64-mm-note-section patch. Reverting that patch
and installing the replacement as at the above URL seems to get us a
built kernel.
Not that it works yet ... but one step forward.
-apw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-26 8:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-09-26 8:48 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2006-09-26 12:44 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-09-27 1:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2006-09-26 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, Andi Kleen, LKML, Ian Campbell
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Martin Bligh wrote:
>>
>>> http://test.kernel.org/abat/49037/debug/test.log.0
>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect.o
>>> LD arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect
>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/setup.o
>>> LD arch/x86_64/boot/setup
>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o
>>> CC arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
>>> OBJCOPY arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin
>>> BFD: Warning: Writing section `.data.percpu' to huge (ie negative) file
>>> offset 0x804700c0.
>>> /usr/local/autobench/sources/x86_64-cross/gcc-3.4.0-glibc-2.3.2/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-objcopy:
>>>
>>> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin: File truncated
>>> make[2]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin] Error 1
>>> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 2
>>> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
>>> 09/25/06-09:13:48 Build the kernel. Failed rc = 2
>>> 09/25/06-09:13:49 build: kernel build Failed rc = 1
>>>
>>> Wierd. Same box compiled 2.6.18 fine.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty sure this isn't a space problem, as we have just checked space
>> before the build and I've taken no action since then. Someone did
>> mention "tool chain issue" when it was first spotted. Will check with
>> them and see why they thought that.
>>
>
> Does this box have an older version of binutils (2.15?)? If so, it
> might be getting upset over the patch "note-section" in Andi's queue. I
> know it has been a bit problematic, but I don't know if the problems
> manifest in this way.
Sure does:
ii binutils 2.14.90.0.7-8 The GNU assembler, linker and binary
utiliti
Thanks for the hint I'll try backing it out and see.
-apw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-26 8:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-09-26 8:48 ` Ian Campbell
2006-09-26 12:44 ` Andy Whitcroft
@ 2006-09-27 1:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-27 9:58 ` Andre Noll
2 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2006-09-27 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Cc: Andy Whitcroft, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, Andi Kleen, LKML,
Ian Campbell
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> writes:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Martin Bligh wrote:
>>
>>> http://test.kernel.org/abat/49037/debug/test.log.0
>>>
>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect.o
>>> LD arch/x86_64/boot/bootsect
>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/setup.o
>>> LD arch/x86_64/boot/setup
>>> AS arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/head.o
>>> CC arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/misc.o
>>> OBJCOPY arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin
>>> BFD: Warning: Writing section `.data.percpu' to huge (ie negative) file
>>> offset 0x804700c0.
>>>
> /usr/local/autobench/sources/x86_64-cross/gcc-3.4.0-glibc-2.3.2/bin/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-objcopy:
>>> arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin: File truncated
>>> make[2]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux.bin] Error 1
>>> make[1]: *** [arch/x86_64/boot/compressed/vmlinux] Error 2
>>> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
>>> 09/25/06-09:13:48 Build the kernel. Failed rc = 2
>>> 09/25/06-09:13:49 build: kernel build Failed rc = 1
>>>
>>> Wierd. Same box compiled 2.6.18 fine.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty sure this isn't a space problem, as we have just checked space
>> before the build and I've taken no action since then. Someone did
>> mention "tool chain issue" when it was first spotted. Will check with
>> them and see why they thought that.
>>
>
> Does this box have an older version of binutils (2.15?)? If so, it might be
> getting upset over the patch "note-section" in Andi's queue. I know it has been
> a bit problematic, but I don't know if the problems manifest in this way.
I have seen this one as well, and it wasn't a space problem, but some weird
toolchain issue. I solved it by upgrading my toolchain, because I wanted
the dwarf unwind support and that required a newer toolchain then I had
been using anyway.
My old toolchain was a cross compiler based on:
GNU ld version 2.13.90.0.4 20020814
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 1:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2006-09-27 9:58 ` Andre Noll
2006-09-27 10:26 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andre Noll @ 2006-09-27 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric W. Biederman
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge, Andy Whitcroft, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton,
Andi Kleen, LKML, Ian Campbell
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 264 bytes --]
On 19:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I have seen this one as well,
Me too. Current linus git tree, x86_64 SMP, gcc-3.3.5, GNU ld version 2.15, binutils
2.15-6, Debian.
Andre
--
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 9:58 ` Andre Noll
@ 2006-09-27 10:26 ` Andi Kleen
2006-09-27 11:04 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-09-27 11:08 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2006-09-27 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andre Noll
Cc: Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, Andy Whitcroft,
Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, LKML, Ian Campbell
On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:58, Andre Noll wrote:
> On 19:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I have seen this one as well,
>
> Me too. Current linus git tree, x86_64 SMP, gcc-3.3.5, GNU ld version 2.15, binutils
> 2.15-6, Debian.
We can probably revert the notes patch for now, since it is only needed
for Xen which isn't even merged yet.
Ian, do you think you can do the notes in some different way that still
works with old binutils?
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 10:26 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2006-09-27 11:04 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-09-27 11:24 ` Ian Campbell
2006-09-27 11:08 ` Ian Campbell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2006-09-27 11:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Andre Noll, Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, Martin Bligh,
Andrew Morton, LKML, Ian Campbell
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 September 2006 11:58, Andre Noll wrote:
>> On 19:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> I have seen this one as well,
>> Me too. Current linus git tree, x86_64 SMP, gcc-3.3.5, GNU ld version 2.15, binutils
>> 2.15-6, Debian.
>
> We can probably revert the notes patch for now, since it is only needed
> for Xen which isn't even merged yet.
>
> Ian, do you think you can do the notes in some different way that still
> works with old binutils?
>
> -Andi
In my testing, backing out the old patch and putting the one mentioned
in the following message seems to work:
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-08/msg01416.html
-apw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 11:04 ` Andy Whitcroft
@ 2006-09-27 11:24 ` Ian Campbell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2006-09-27 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Whitcroft
Cc: Andi Kleen, Andre Noll, Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge,
Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, LKML
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 12:04 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> In my testing, backing out the old patch and putting the one mentioned
> in the following message seems to work:
>
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2006-08/msg01416.html
FWIW that's the same as applying
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115567883710134&w=2 over
the original patch, which is the fix I was talking about in my previous
mail.
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 10:26 ` Andi Kleen
2006-09-27 11:04 ` Andy Whitcroft
@ 2006-09-27 11:08 ` Ian Campbell
2006-09-27 12:05 ` Andi Kleen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Ian Campbell @ 2006-09-27 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Andre Noll, Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge,
Andy Whitcroft, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, LKML
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 12:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> We can probably revert the notes patch for now, since it is only
> needed for Xen which isn't even merged yet.
We could apply the fix which moves the .bss after the .data sections.
The bug report after you originally applied that patch looked to me like
it was an existing bug which was exposed so it would probably be worth
tracking down the root cause of that one rather than rejecting that
patch as a possible solution.
The xen-unstable tree has had the .bss movement patch in for a couple of
weeks now with no reported bugs. We are frozen for the release 3.0.3 so
at least in theory people should be testing it pretty hard ;-)
> Ian, do you think you can do the notes in some different way that still
> works with old binutils?
I'm not sure. I think the notes themselves are generated fine the
problem lies in the change to the linker script to gather all
the .notes.* sections into the same PT_NOTES segment, that is something
Jeremy did for i386 and I just copied.
Do the notes really need to be gathered together? I we could make Xen
look for .notes.* sections as well as the PT_NOTES segment but I would
prefer to use the segment if possible...
Ian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 11:08 ` Ian Campbell
@ 2006-09-27 12:05 ` Andi Kleen
2006-09-27 14:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-27 16:53 ` Andy Whitcroft
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2006-09-27 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Campbell
Cc: Andre Noll, Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge,
Andy Whitcroft, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, LKML
> The xen-unstable tree has had the .bss movement patch in for a couple of
> weeks now with no reported bugs. We are frozen for the release 3.0.3 so
> at least in theory people should be testing it pretty hard ;-)
Ok maybe we should retry it. The BSS movement patch makes sense by
itself after all and in theory really shouldn't break anything.
I'll reenable it.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 12:05 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2006-09-27 14:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-09-27 16:53 ` Andy Whitcroft
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2006-09-27 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Ian Campbell, Andre Noll, Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge,
Andy Whitcroft, Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, LKML
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
>> The xen-unstable tree has had the .bss movement patch in for a couple of
>> weeks now with no reported bugs. We are frozen for the release 3.0.3 so
>> at least in theory people should be testing it pretty hard ;-)
>
> Ok maybe we should retry it. The BSS movement patch makes sense by
> itself after all and in theory really shouldn't break anything.
> I'll reenable it.
I think some part of the relocatable kernel or kexec on panic work
had problems with the bss in the middle as well.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: 2.6.18-mm1 compile failure on x86_64
2006-09-27 12:05 ` Andi Kleen
2006-09-27 14:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2006-09-27 16:53 ` Andy Whitcroft
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Andy Whitcroft @ 2006-09-27 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen
Cc: Ian Campbell, Andre Noll, Eric W. Biederman, Jeremy Fitzhardinge,
Martin Bligh, Andrew Morton, LKML
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The xen-unstable tree has had the .bss movement patch in for a couple of
>> weeks now with no reported bugs. We are frozen for the release 3.0.3 so
>> at least in theory people should be testing it pretty hard ;-)
>
> Ok maybe we should retry it. The BSS movement patch makes sense by
> itself after all and in theory really shouldn't break anything.
> I'll reenable it.
This change seems to have just hit mainline in 2.6.18-git7. Perhaps we
need to expedite the fix to mainline.
-apw
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread