On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:34:07PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 05:16:10PM +0530, Sachin Sant wrote: >> >>> Today's Next tree failed to boot on a Power6 box with following BUG : >> >> This doesn't actually appear to be a SCSI bug ... it looks like SCSI tried >> to allocate memory and things went wrong in the memory allocator: >> >> [c0000000c7d038b0] [c0000000005d67d8] ._spin_lock+0x10/0x24 >> [c0000000c7d03920] [c00000000013fbdc] .__slab_alloc_page+0x344/0x3cc >> [c0000000c7d039e0] [c000000000141168] .kmem_cache_alloc+0x13c/0x21c >> [c0000000c7d03aa0] [c000000000141b04] .kmem_cache_create+0x294/0x2a8 >> [c0000000c7d03b90] [d000000000ea14cc] .scsi_init_queue+0x38/0x170 [scsi_mod] >> >> Which memory allocator did you have selected (SLAB, SLUB, SLOB, SLQB)? >> > Default one. SLQB > > CONFIG_SLQB_ALLOCATOR=y > CONFIG_SLQB=y > > Page size is 64K with Config DEBUG_PAGEALLOC set. > > CONFIG_PPC_HAS_HASH_64K=y > CONFIG_PPC_64K_PAGES=y > CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y Hm. We've seen some similar problems at Intel while doing database performance tests with SLQB. Any ideas, Nick? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
