12.12.2012 21:35, Dimitry Andric: > On 2012-12-12 14:04, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: >> 04.12.2012 00:41, Konstantin Belousov: >>> Please try the patch below. It might give an immediate relief, but still >>> there are many offenders in the backtrace. >> >> I'm having almost the same issue and the patch doesn't work for me. > ... > > Looking at the stack frame addresses, it seems some of them are mangled. > Did you type this by hand? The differences between subsequent frames > are a bit strange because of it (and because of awk's integer > processing): Yes, I had typed that by hand. I attached link to the pictures just in case. > The kernel stack is just 8,192 bytes; since you can see these routines > are all consuming massive amounts of stack, and the calls are very > deeply nested, it is almost inevitable that it would crash. > > Especially the recursive spa_load and traverse_visitbp calls are scary, > because that can grow out of hand very quickly. It is probably tricky > to remove the recursion... After playing more with this kernel I also found it can crash not only by this scenario. There are different possible ways. I actually don't think there's a point fixing it right now. New clang is coming anyway... -- Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.Received on Thu Dec 13 2012 - 11:29:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:33 UTC