On 09/17/2013 03:29 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Vlastimil, > >> >> Also, some of the failures during bisect were not due to this bug, but a WARNING for >> list_add corruption which hopefully is not related to munlock. While it is probably a far stretch, >> some kind of memory corruption could also lead to the erroneous behavior of the munlock code. >> >> Can you therefore please retest with the bisected patch reverted (patch below) to see if the other >> WARNING still occurs and can be dealt with separately, so there are not potentially two bugs to >> be chased at the same time? > > Yes there seems to be one more bug, the attached dmesg is for the > kernel with your patch reverted. I'm trying to bisect the other bug > now. Thanks. Meanwhile I was able to reproduce the bug in my patch in a VM with x86_32 without PAE. As it turns out, pmd_addr_end() on such configuration without pmd really does not bound the address to page table boundary, but is a no-op. Working on a fix. Vlastimil > Thanks, > Fengguang > -- 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>