From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:59:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:58:58 -0400 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:30604 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:58:41 -0400 To: Steffen Persvold CC: lkml , "nfs@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: Kernel crash using NFSv3 on 2.4.4 In-Reply-To: <3AED12A4.FA869E84@scali.no> From: Trond Myklebust Date: 30 Apr 2001 11:58:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: Steffen Persvold's message of "Mon, 30 Apr 2001 02:22:12 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Steffen Persvold writes: > Hi all, I have compiled a stock 2.4.4 kernel and applied SGI's > kdb patch v1.8. Most of the time this runs just fine, but one > time when I tried to copy a file from a NFS server I got a > kernel fault. Luckily it jumped right into the debugger and I > could to some batcktracing (quite useful!) : > Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address > 414478b1 > printing eip: > c012c826 *pde = 00000000 > Entering kdb (current=0xca07a000, pid 971) on processor 0 Oops: > Oops due to oops @ 0xc012c826 eax = 0x20000000 ebx = 0xc15e4800 > ecx = 0x00000000 edx = 0xc1447899 esi = 0x00000000 edi = > 0xc14477a0 esp = 0xca07ba98 eip = 0xc012c826 ebp = 0xca07baa4 > xss = 0x00000018 xcs = 0x00000010 eflags = 0x00010046 xds = > 0xc1440018 xes = 0x00000018 origeax = 0xffffffff ®s = > 0xca07ba64 [0]kdb> bt > EBP EIP Function(args) > 0xca07baa4 0xc012c826 kmem_cache_alloc_batch+0x46 (0xc14477a0, > 0x7, 0xcb965260) > kernel .text 0xc0100000 > 0xc012c7e0 0xc012c864 > 0xca07bad0 0xc012ca8e kmalloc+0x82 (0x13c, 0x7, 0xca4ca040, > 0x0) Looks like the IP layer is trying to allocate too much memory. You wouldn't have set /proc/sys/net/core/{w,r}mem_{max,default} to some value greater than 256k? Cheers, Trond