Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:02:52 -0400 (EDT) | From | Justin Piszcz <> | Subject | Re: kernel 3.0: BUG: soft lockup: find_get_pages+0x51/0x110 |
| |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> Hello, >> >> What causes this(?) -- am I out of memory(?) or is this a kernel bug? > > It would be a kernel bug to lock up even if you are out of memory. This machine has 48GB of RAM and its just a linux router and some gqview's running..
> > It does look like you're under memory pressure, but I don't see any OOM. > > Is this something you've noticed just once, or does it happen repeatedly? This has happened once before (I've e-mailed LKML about it last weekend or thereabouts but nobody responded)
It is here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/12/54 (down?) http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1178570
> > Does it always hit somewhere in find_get_pages(), or does the loop span > wider than that? Per: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1178570
Slightly different (From August 12)
75 [330509.718763] Call Trace: 76 [330509.718771] [<ffffffff81089e15>] ? pagevec_lookup+0x15/0x20 77 [330509.718776] [<ffffffff8108b905>] ? invalidate_mapping_pages+0x55/0x130 78 [330509.718784] [<ffffffff810d6835>] ? shrink_icache_memory+0x2c5/0x310 79 [330509.718788] [<ffffffff8108c254>] ? shrink_slab+0x104/0x170 80 [330509.718793] [<ffffffff8108eda2>] ? balance_pgdat+0x492/0x600 81 [330509.718798] [<ffffffff8108efbc>] ? kswapd+0xac/0x250 82 [330509.718803] [<ffffffff81050fd0>] ? abort_exclusive_wait+0xb0/0xb0 83 [330509.718807] [<ffffffff8108ef10>] ? balance_pgdat+0x600/0x600 84 [330509.718811] [<ffffffff8105082e>] ? kthread+0x7e/0x90 85 [330509.718818] [<ffffffff815b4e14>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 86 [330509.718822] [<ffffffff810507b0>] ? kthread_worker_fn+0x120/0x120 87 [330509.718825] [<ffffffff815b4e10>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
The first time it happened was when running a lot of I/O \ (dumps and streams/backups over SSH).
> > I'm answering out of interest in find_get_pages(): which does contain > a number of gotos which could result in endless looping; except that > they're all supposed to be for very transitory conditions which a > second glance at the RCU-protected tree should correct. I am using 'server' for the workload type, not 'low latency' -- which exposes more bugs/problems..
> > But if a radix_tree node got corrupted, then yes, it could loop forever. > > If it's repeatable, please try again with slab poisoning (and frame > pointers) enabled? I will enable frame pointers and wait for the next error/problem and report back if/when it recurs, thanks!
Justin.
| |