On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 15:07 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 14:32 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 14:30 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 04:10 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > > > > > > > I take this back. It took a couple of hours, but it crashed again. > > > > > > Do you have 64k pages enabled? My issue goes away entirely when I > > > disable 64k pages. > > > > Well, clearly not entirely. But it's holding up much better now. > > > > [ 325.379292] iommu_free: invalid entry > > I added two printks to make it easier to look at: adding printk to iommu_map_single, we see that the address was never even mapped! [...] [ 297.544692] iommu_map_single = 10ef2000 [ 297.544711] iommu_map_single = 10ef4000 [ 297.646975] iommu_map_single = 10ef6920 [ 297.748983] iommu_map_single = 10ef7b68 [ 297.953110] iommu_map_single = 10ef8db0 [ 297.953229] iommu_free: invalid entry [ 297.953245] free_entry= 0x991c0 [ 297.953256] npages = 0x1 [ 297.953268] entry = 0x991c0 [ 297.953279] dma_addr = 0x991c0100 [ 297.953290] Table = 0xc00000000083f348 [ 297.953302] bus# = 0x0 [ 297.953313] size = 0x80000 [ 297.953324] startOff = 0x0 [ 297.953333] index = 0x0 [ 297.953349] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 297.953361] Badness at arch/powerpc/kernel/iommu.c:260 clearly, that can't be right since iommu_map_single has been returning increasing numbers up to this point, and a dma_addr of 0x991c0100 wasn't among them. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
