From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: hch@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: mapped page in prep_new_page()..
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:30:03 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402262305000.2563@ppc970.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040226225809.669d275a.akpm@osdl.org>
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm.. I've never seen this before myself, but I know there have been
> > similar reports.
>
> There have been a few. I don't recall seeing any against x86.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if it is an architecture bug (possibly
one that has been common but has long been fixed on x86).
> > Earlier today I got
> >
> > Bad page state at prep_new_page
> > flags:0x00000000 mapping:0000000000000000 mapped:1 count:0
>
> But you did not get a trace for a mapped page being freed up prior to this?
That's correct.
> Yes, I don't think we can sanely fix all these conditions. If we really
> want to keep limping along we should just leak the page in
> __free_pages_ok(), and leak the page then pick a new one in
> __alloc_pages(). This shouldn't be worth the effort, of course.
I agree - it's only worth doing if it is simple. In this case it would
have been simple to just refuse to add the bad page back to the free list.
> > Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
> > SMP NR_CPUS=2
> > NIP: C00000000008D7C4 XER: 0000000020000000 LR: C000000000086F70
> > REGS: c00000007a43b7f0 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted
> > MSR: 9000000000009032 EE: 1 PR: 0 FP: 0 ME: 1 IR/DR: 11
> > DAR: 0000005f00000008, DSISR: 0000000040000000
> > TASK: c000000059819b20[8510] 'bk' THREAD: c00000007a438000 CPU: 0
> > GPR00: 0000000000000000 C00000007A43BA70 C0000000006AD0D0 C000000000FFFFC0
> > GPR04: C00000002CBC30F0 C000000032F2F200 C000000002FD64D0 C0000000004D8050
> > GPR08: 0000000002AFE480 0000000000000000 0000005F00000000 0000000000000004
> > GPR12: 0000000042008488 C0000000004E0000 0000000002000000 0000000011A1E004
> > GPR16: C00000005EC23400 0000000000000050 C000000054447000 4000000000000000
> > GPR20: C0000000005714C8 C0000000006F6B80 0000000000001580 C000000032F2F200
> > GPR24: 0000000000532000 0000000000000532 C00000000072FFB8 C000000000FFFFC0
> > GPR28: CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD 00000001A88C0397 C000000000586978 C00000002CBC30F0
> > NIP [c00000000008d7c4] .page_add_rmap+0xb4/0x1b4
> > LR [c000000000086f70] .do_anonymous_page+0x314/0x50c
> > Call Trace:
> > [c000000000087204] .do_no_page+0x9c/0x570
> > [c0000000000879b0] .handle_mm_fault+0x1b0/0x26c
> > [c0000000000431c8] .do_page_fault+0x120/0x3f8
> > [c00000000000aa94] stab_bolted_user_return+0x118/0x11c
>
> So what is the access address here? That will tell us what value was in
> page.pte.chain.
Heh. I've had this G5 thing for a couple of weeks, I'm not very good at
reading the oops dump either ;)
The ppc64 page fault oops thing seems to be braindead, and not even print
out the address. Stupid. Somebody is too used to debuggers, and as a
result users aren't helped to make good reports, hint hint..
Anyway, a little digging shows that the thing seems to be the instruction
.. r3 is "struct page *" ..
ld r10,64(r3) /* r10 is "page->pte.direct" */
...
ld r0,0(r3) /* r0 is "page->flags */
rldicl r0,r0,48,63
cmpwi r0,0 /* PageDirect(page) ? */
... nope, direct bit not set ...
ld r0,8(r10)
where r10 (as per above) is 0x0000005F00000000. So the fault address
would have been 0x0000005F00000008.
The value of r3 is interesting: C000000000FFFFC0. That's _just_ under the
16MB mark, and the offset of the "page->pte.direct" access is 64 bytes.
Which means that the corrupted data was at _exactly_ the 16MB mark.
Now, I have no idea why, but it's an interesting - if slightly odd -
detail.
Who would write the value quadword 0x0000005F00000000 to the physical
address 1<<24? And is that a valid "struct page *" in the first place?
Probably.
Bad pointer crapola? Or some subtle CPU bug with address arithmetic that
crosses the 16MB border? Anton, BenH, any ideas?
Linus
--
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-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-27 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-27 6:46 Linus Torvalds
2004-02-27 6:58 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-27 7:11 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-27 7:21 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-27 7:30 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2004-02-27 7:31 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-27 10:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2004-02-27 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-02-27 15:38 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-27 22:06 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0402262305000.2563@ppc970.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox