Re: 2.6.13-mm3

Sonny Rao
2005-09-13T18:50:44Z

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 02:32:15PM -0400, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 12:56:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Sonny Rao <sonny@burdell.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 02:43:50AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > - There are several performance tuning patches here which need careful
> > > > attention and testing. (Does anyone do performance testing any more?)
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > - The size of the page allocator per-cpu magazines has been increased
> > > >
> > > > - The page allocator has been changed to use higher-order allocations
> > > > when batch-loading the per-cpu magazines. This is intended to give
> > > > improved cache colouring effects however it might have the downside of
> > > > causing extra page allocator fragmentation.
> > > >
> > > > - The page allocator's per-cpu magazines have had their lower threshold
> > > > set to zero. And we can't remember why it ever had a lower threshold.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What would you like? The usual suspects: SDET, dbench, kernbench ?
> > >
> >
> > That would be a good start, thanks. The higher-order-allocations thing is
> > mainly targeted at big-iron numerical computing I believe.
> >
> > I've already had one report of fragmentation-derived page allocator
> > failures (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5229).
>
> Ok, I'm getting much further on ppc64 thanks to Anton B.
>
> So far, I need patched in the hvc console fix, Anton's SCSI fix for
> 2.6.14-rc1, Paulus's EEH fix, and I reverted
> remove-near-all-bugs-in-mm-mempolicyc.patch and
> convert-mempolicies-to-nodemask_t.patch
>
> I got most of the way through the boot scripts and crashed while
> bringing up the loopback interface.
>
> Here's the latest PPC64 crash on 2.6.13-mm3:
>
> smp_call_function on cpu 5: other cpus not responding (5)
> cpu 0x5: Vector: 0 at [c00000000f3b6b00]
> pc: 000000000000003d
> lr: 000000000000003d
> sp: c00000000f3b6a90
> msr: 8000000000009032
> current = 0xc000000002018050
> paca = 0xc00000000048a400
> pid = 1679, comm = ip
> enter ? for help
> 5:mon> t
>
> (xmon hangs here)

Here's another one with the traceback:

1:mon> e
cpu 0x1: Vector: 0 at [c0000001ebff7860]
pc: 000000000000003d
lr: 000000000000003d
sp: c0000001ebff77f0
msr: 8000000000009032
current = 0xc0000001ebf067f0
paca = 0xc000000000488400
pid = 1, comm = swapper
1:mon>
1:mon> t
[c0000001ebff77f0] c0000000000403f8 .xmon+0xf4/0x104 (unreliable)
[c0000001ebff79c0] c00000000002e6fc .smp_call_function+0x1b4/0x1e0
[c0000001ebff7a70] c000000000084d34 .smp_call_function_all_cpus+0x70/0x98
[c0000001ebff7b00] c000000000085ff4 .do_tune_cpucache+0x10c/0x68c
[c0000001ebff7ce0] c0000000000867e8 .enable_cpucache+0x9c/0xec
[c0000001ebff7d60] c0000000000878b8 .kmem_cache_create+0x5e0/0x8e4
[c0000001ebff7e60] c00000000045382c .as_init+0x38/0xbc
[c0000001ebff7ef0] c000000000008888 .init+0x1f4/0x454
[c0000001ebff7f90] c00000000000fa48 .kernel_thread+0x4c/0x68
1:mon>

I'm starting to think I'm going to have to test the above stuff on
x86... (maybe someone will prove me wrong ;-))

Sonny