From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <391071E3.C3398C52@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 11:37:23 -0700 From: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Oops in __free_pages_ok (pre7-1) (Long) (backtrace) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kanoj Sarcar , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > > > > At no point between the time try_to_swap_out() is running, will is_page_shared() > > wrongly indicate the page is _not shared_, when it is really shared (as you > > say, it is pessimistic). > > > _Something_ obviously triggers on the x86, though. IMHO, that's the right attitude. I really like the idea of having the page locked if its state is being fiddled with. I know, we don't fully understand the problem, in the sense that no one has been able to construct a sample execution which will hit the bug. But so what? Since the bug is elusive, even if one comes up with a scenario, no saying that _that_ is what happened during the particular manifestation. [ ... ] > > We fixed one such bug in NFS. Maybe there are more lurking? How much > memory do the machines have that have problems? > I don't use NFS on my test systems. So, that couldn't have been a problem. I had about 64MB of memory in the system. BTW, I've been running the test (some tar & diff) for several hours now on the same system. The system is staying up fine. regards, ananth. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/