On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:22:41 +0700 BuraphaLinux Server wrote:
On 12/24/09, Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 12/24/09 02:03, BuraphaLinux Server wrote:On my Dell OptiPlex 330 machines with kernel 2.6.32.2 I get a strangewas there a kernel that did not do this?
WARNING. Do I need to worry? Here is the warning:
[ 0.000000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 0.000000] WARNING: at mm/page_alloc.c:1805
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b6/0x730()
[ 0.000000] Hardware name: OptiPlex 330
[ 0.000000] Modules linked in:
[ 0.000000] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.32.2 #1
[ 0.000000] Call Trace:
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8108e806>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b6/0x730
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff81043f68>] warn_slowpath_common+0x78/0xd0
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff81043fcf>] warn_slowpath_null+0xf/0x20
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8108e806>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b6/0x730
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff810b4e28>] alloc_pages_current+0x78/0xf0
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8108da69>] __get_free_pages+0x9/0x50
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff810bb912>] __kmalloc+0x112/0x120
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff8146e773>] vgacon_scrollback_startup+0x13/0x70
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff811d29b3>] vgacon_startup+0x2a3/0x420
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff816fc556>] con_init+0x1b/0x230
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff816fba00>] console_init+0x22/0x42
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff816d4b8f>] start_kernel+0x240/0x3be
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff816d4289>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x99/0xb9
[ 0.000000] [<ffffffff816d4389>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xe0/0xf2
[ 0.000000] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
I also got it on 2.6.31.9, but had waited to ask hoping 2.6.32.2 would fix
it.
Attached is my config
if so can you try a bisect on this?
Justin P. Mattock
It took a while, but I have verified that 2.6.30.10 works without any
message, and 2.6.31 has the error message (but otherwise seems to run
ok). The hex codes are different, but the function names match and
are in the same places.
Does it have to be git bisect, or will trying the 2.6.31rc[1-9] be
enough instead? The Documentation/BUG-HUNTING does not give detailed
enough instructions for me to do the bisect thing.
"git bisect" can point directly at the kernel patch that causes the
problem (well, most of the time it can do that), whereas just saying
2.6.31-rc[1-9] will just tell us that it was one of a few thousand
patches. Not nearly as helpful.
Maybe this can help you:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git-core/docs/git-bisect-lk2009.html
---
~Randy