On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 14:10 -0500, pacman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I've been flailing around quite a bit. Here's my latest result: > > Since I can view the corruption with md5sum /sbin/e2fsck, I know it's in a > clean cached page. So I made an extra copy of /sbin/e2fsck, which won't be > loaded into memory during boot. So now after the corruption happens, I can > cmp -l /sbin/e2fsck good-e2fsck > for a quick look at the changed bytes. Much easier than provoking a segfault > under gdb. > > Then I got really creative and wrote a cmp replacement which mmaps the files > and reports the physical addresses from /proc/self/pagemap of the pages that > don't match. And the consistent result is that physical pages 64604 and 64609 > (both in the range of the order=9 64512) have wrong contents. And the > corruption is always a single word 128 bytes after the start of the page. > Physical addresses 0x0fc5c080 and 0x0fc61080 are hit every time. .../... You can do something fun... like a timer interrupt that peeks at those physical addresses from the linear mapping for example, and try to find out "when" they get set to the wrong value (you should observe the load from disk, then the corruption, unless they end up being loaded incorrectly (ie. dma coherency problem ?) ... >From there, you might be able to close onto the culprit a bit more, for example, try using the DABR register to set data access breakpoints shortly before the corruption spot. AFAIK, On those old 32-bit CPUs, you can set whether you want it to break on a real or a virtual address. You can also sprinkle tests for the page content through the code if that doesn't work to try to "close in" on the culprit (for example if it's a case of stray DMA, like a network driver bug or such). Cheers, Ben. > The values of the corrupted words, observed in 5 consecutive boots, were: > at 0fc5c080 at 0fc61080 > ----------- ----------- > c3540000 92510000 > 565c0000 23590000 > c85b0000 97580000 > d15f0000 9e5c0000 > d95b0000 a8580000 > > The low 16 bits are all 0 and the upper 16 bits seem randomly distributed. > But look at the differences: > > c3540000 - 92510000 = 31030000 > 565c0000 - 23590000 = 33030000 > c85b0000 - 97580000 = 31030000 > d15f0000 - 9e5c0000 = 33030000 > d95b0000 - a8580000 = 31030000 > > This means something... but I don't know what. > > In a completely different method of investigation, I went back a few stable > kernels, got 2.6.33.7 and applied 6dda9d55 to it, thinking that if 6dda9d55 > only reveals a pre-existing bug, I could bisect it using 6dda9d55 as a > bug-revealing assistant. The bug appeared when running 2.6.33.7 with 6dda9d55 > applied. That was discouraging. > > >This patch fixes the problem by ensuring we are not reading a possibly > >invalid location of memory. It's not clear why the read causes > >corruption but one way or the other it is a buggy read. > > At least that part of the explanation is wrong. Where's the buggy read? > The action taken by the 6dda9d55 version of __free_one_page looks perfectly > legitimate to me. Page numbers: > > [129024 ] [130048 ] order=10 > [129024 129536] [130048 130560] order=9 > > 130048 is being freed. 130560 is not free. 129024 (the higher_buddy) is > already free at order=10. So 130048 is being pushed to the tail of the free > list, on the speculation that 130560 might soon be free and then the whole > thing will form an order=11 free page, the only problem being that order=11 > is too high so that later merge will never happen. It's not useful, and maybe > not conceptually valid to say that 129024 is the buddy of 130048, but it is > an existing page, and the only way it wouldn't be is if the total memory size > was not a multiple of 1<<(MAX_ORDER-1) pages > > -- > Alan Curry > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev -- 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>