lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip:x86/alternatives] x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbers for cpufeature index
On 06/29/2010 02:15 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Hm, this patch is causing trouble in -tip testing again - it's triggering a
> colorful boot crash:
>
> [ 2.220002] calling inet_init+0x0/0x23d @ 1
> [ 2.223343] NET: Registered protocol family 2
> [ 2.226727] IP route cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
> [ 2.233492] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 2.236671] WARNING: at mm/vmalloc.c:107 vmap_page_range_noflush+0x309/0x3a0()
> [ 2.240001] Modules linked in:
> ...
> [ 3.090002] Kernel panic - not syncing: Failed to allocate TCP established hash table
>
> So i've zapped them again. We really need to get to the bottom of this. Config
> and bootlog attached.
>
> The crash looks very weird - and it's consistent with possible effects of some
> sort of code patching failure/mismatch.
>
> It goes away if i revert these two:
>
> a3d2d12: x86, alternatives: correct obsolete use of "u8" in static_cpu_has()
> 5dc71d4: x86, alternatives: Use 16-bit numbers for cpufeature index
>
> I reproduced the crash twice before testing the revert.
>

Hi Ingo,

I'm pretty sure that these are related to gcc and/or binutils
differences, so it would be nice to get the .o and .s files of the
failing locations (in this case mm/vmalloc.[so]) *as built on the
failing machines*.

-hpa

--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-29 17:37    [W:0.079 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site