On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Ok, so this is panicking because of the error handling when trying to > > create sysfs directories with the same name (in this case, :dt-0000064). > > I'll look into while this isn't failing gracefully later, but I isolated > > this to the new code that statically allocates the DMA caches in > > kmem_cache_init_late(). > > Hmm.... Strange. The DMA caches should create a distinct pattern there. > They do after patch 11 when you introduce dynamically sized kmalloc caches, but not after only patches 1-8 were applied. Since this wasn't booting on my system, I bisected the problem to patch 8 where kmem_cache_init_late() would create two DMA caches of size 64 bytes: one becauses of kmalloc_caches[0] (kmem_cache_node) and one because of kmalloc_caches[6] (2^6 = 64). So my fixes are necessary for patch 8 but obsoleted later, and then the shared cache support panics on memset(). > > - the entire iteration in kmem_cache_init_late() needs to be protected by > > slub_lock. The comment in create_kmalloc_cache() should be revised > > since you're no longer calling it only with irqs disabled. > > kmem_cache_init_late() has irqs enabled and, thus, slab_caches must be > > protected. > > I moved it to kmem_cache_init() which is run when we only have one > execution thread. That takes care of the issue and ensures that the dma > caches are available as early as before. > I didn't know if that was a debugging patch for me or if you wanted to push that as part of your series, I'm not sure if you actually need to move it to kmem_cache_init() now that slub_state is protected by slub_lock. I'm not sure if we want to allocate DMA objects between kmem_cache_init() and kmem_cache_init_late(). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>