Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:33:47 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |