Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:30:35 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24 |
| |
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9412 > Subject : commit a878539ef994787c447a98c2e3ba0fe3dad984ec breaks boot on SB600 AHCI > Submitter : Srihari Vijayaraghavan <sriharivijayaraghavan@yahoo.com.au> > Date : 2008-03-12 17:15 (16 days old) > Handled-By : Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> > Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@amd.com>
Fixed by 4cde32fc4b32e96a99063af3183acdfd54c563f0, methinks.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9962 > Subject : mount: could not find filesystem > Submitter : Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Date : 2008-02-12 14:34 (45 days old) > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/91 > Handled-By : Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> > Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Needs more info. The original oops that opened it is fixed, but..
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9976 > Subject : BUG: 2.6.25-rc1: iptables postrouting setup causes oops > Submitter : Ben Nizette <bn@niasdigital.com> > Date : 2008-02-12 12:46 (45 days old) > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/148 > Handled-By : Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>
This one seems gone (and was apparently AVR-only):
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/13/607: "What ever the problem is it isn't immediately apparent in latest git so I guess we'll just have to keep our eyes peeled."
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9978 > Subject : 2.6.25-rc1: volanoMark regression > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> > Date : 2008-02-13 10:30 (44 days old) > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/13/128 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/12/52 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/18/81 > Handled-By : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hmm. It is a regression on one machine (2x quad-core stoakley), but not another (4x quad-core tigerton).
Interestingly, the stoakley box numbers have apparently been all over the map.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10318 > Subject : WARNING: at arch/x86/mm/highmem_32.c:43 kmap_atomic_prot+0x87/0x184() > Submitter : Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@artcom.pl> > Date : 2008-03-25 02:50 (3 days old)
Andrew and seems to have debugged this down to a kzalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) or similar.
I wonder if the bug is in that commit 3811dbf67162bd08412f1b0e02e554f353e93bdb ("SLUB: remove useless masking of GFP_ZERO"), because I don't think that masking was at all useless and I think my original 7fd272550bd43cc1d7289ef0ab2fa50de137e767 was correct.
That apparently bogus commit says "GFP_ZERO is already masked out in new_slab()", but gfpflags is not just used for new_slab(), but for kmalloc_large() too. Which does *not* clear GFP_ZERO.
Pawel, does reverting 3811dbf67162bd08412f1b0e02e554f353e93bdb fix it for you?
Also, Rafael - do these reminder emails also go to the people who are mentioned in the regressions (especially people who are set up as being "hanled-by" or having patches for the problem)?
Linus
| |