Hi. On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 00:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi, > > On Monday, 18 December 2006 23:44, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 23:38 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, 18 December 2006 18:02, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, 18 December 2006 12:20, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > > >> Hi. > > > > >> > > > > >> I got this oops while suspending: > > > > >> [ 309.366557] Disabling non-boot CPUs ... > > > > >> [ 309.386563] CPU 1 is now offline > > > > >> [ 309.387625] CPU1 is down > > > > >> [ 309.387704] Stopping tasks ... done. > > > > >> [ 310.030991] Shrinking memory... -<0>divide error: 0000 [#1] > > > > >> [ 310.456669] SMP > > > > >> [ 310.456814] last sysfs file: > > > > >> /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1e.0/0000:02:08.0/eth0/statistics/collisions > > > > >> [ 310.456919] Modules linked in: eth1394 floppy ohci1394 ide_cd ieee1394 cdrom > > > > >> [ 310.457259] CPU: 0 > > > > >> [ 310.457260] EIP: 0060:[<c0150c9a>] Not tainted VLI > > > > >> [ 310.457261] EFLAGS: 00210246 (2.6.20-rc1-mm1 #207) > > > > >> [ 310.457478] EIP is at shrink_slab+0x9e/0x169 > > > > > > > > > > Looks like we have a problem with slab shrinking here. > > > > > > > > > > Could you please use gdb to check what exactly is at shrink_slab+0x9e? > > > > > > > > Sure, but not till Friday, sorry (I am away). > > > > > > I reproduced this on one box, but then it turned out that EIP was at line 195 > > > of mm/vmscan.c where there was > > > > > > do_div(delta, lru_pages + 1); > > > > > > Well, I have no idea how this can lead to a divide error (lru_pages is > > > unsigned). > > > > > > I'm unable to reproduce this on another i386 box, so it seems to be somewhat > > > configuration specific. > > > > > > Does 2.6.20-rc1 work for you? > > > > I have a patch in -mm that reduces lru_pages by what shrink_all_zones > > returns. Could shrink_all_zones perhaps be returning incorrect values > > such that lru_pages ends up becoming -1? > > I don't think so, but look at the appended patch. ;-) > > Greetings, > Rafael > > > --- > Fix a (really bad) typo in shrink_all_memory(). > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Index: linux-2.6.20-rc1-mm1/mm/vmscan.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.20-rc1-mm1.orig/mm/vmscan.c > +++ linux-2.6.20-rc1-mm1/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -1569,7 +1569,7 @@ unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned > sc.swap_cluster_max = nr_pages - ret; > freed = shrink_all_zones(nr_to_scan, prio, pass, &sc); > ret += freed; > - lru_pages =- freed; > + lru_pages -= freed; > nr_to_scan = nr_pages - ret; > if (ret >= nr_pages) > goto out; Heh, yeah. Definitely acked! :) Nigel
