[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [Xen-users] kernel 3.9.2 - xen 4.2.2/4.3rc1 => BUG unable to handle kernel paging request netif_poll+0x49c/0xe8
On 07/05/2013 12:54 PM, Wei Liu wrote: >> >> [ 7.670132] Adding 4192252k swap on /dev/xvda1. Priority:-1 >> extents:1 across:4192252k SS >> [ 10.204340] NET: Registered protocol family 17 >> [ 481.534979] netfront: Too many frags >> [ 487.543946] netfront: Too many frags >> [ 491.049458] netfront: Too many frags >> [ 491.491153] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [ 491.491628] kernel BUG at drivers/xen/netfront/netfront.c:1295! > > So what's the code around line 1295? There must be a BUG_ON there. It's > normal you didn't see the same line number in my patch (1306) because we > were using different kernel. > Yes, stupid me. I was definitely in a wrong state when writing this. Even more stupid, I did make the same stupid remark after obtaining results with Jan's patch. 1000 times sorry... ( I was to much in a hurry to get my response back to you likely because I was happy that you guys could free some for this.) So now we know that nr_frags >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS 1285 static RING_IDX xennet_fill_frags(struct netfront_info *np, 1286 struct sk_buff *skb, 1287 struct sk_buff_head *list) 1288 { 1289 struct skb_shared_info *shinfo = skb_shinfo(skb); 1290 int nr_frags = shinfo->nr_frags; 1291 RING_IDX cons = np->rx.rsp_cons; 1292 struct sk_buff *nskb; 1293 1294 while ((nskb = __skb_dequeue(list))) { 1295 BUG_ON(nr_frags >= MAX_SKB_FRAGS); 1296 1297 struct netif_rx_response *rx = 1298 RING_GET_RESPONSE(&np->rx, ++cons); 1299 >> >> In the mean time Jan took the bug in bugzilla >> (https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826374) and created a first >> patch. I propose we continue the discussion there and post the >> conclusion in this list to finish this thread here as well. >> > > I'm not so sure what's the best way. In general it would be much a > burden for developers to look at every bugzilla, let alone register > account for each bugzilla. > > Anyway, as we already started the discussion here, I think we should > just continue it here. We could do this the other way around, discuss > here and post conclusion / references there. This is oke with me. I was wondering what would be most convenient. Dion _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |