On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 04.10.2016 18:50, Johannes Bauer wrote: > >> Uhh, that sounds painful. So I'm following Ted's advice and building >> myself a 4.8 as we speak. > > Damn bad idea to build on the instable target. Lots of gcc segfaults and > weird stuff, even without a kernel panic. The system appears to be > instable as hell. Wonder how it can even run and how much of the root fs > is already corrupted :-( > > Rebuilding 4.8 on a different host. Looks like a platform itself is somewhat faulty: [1]. Also please bear in mind that standalone memory testers would rather not expose certain classes of memory failures, I`d suggest to test allocator`s work against gcc runs on tmpfs, almost same as you did before. Frequency of crashes due to wrong pointer contents of an fs cache is most probably a direct outcome from its relative memory footprint. 1. https://communities.intel.com/thread/105640 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>