[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1001001: linux-image-5.10.0-9-arm64: kernel BUG at include/linux/swapops.h:204!



Control: found -1 linux/5.10.103-1

Hi Paul,

On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 20:58:59 CEST Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 20-02-2022 13:44, Paul Gevers wrote:
> 
> > Sad to say, but this week we had two hangs again.
> 
> And this week another two.
> 
> ============ ci-worker-arm64-07 ==============
> 
> Mar 26 10:15:55 ci-worker-arm64-07 kernel: kernel BUG at 
> include/linux/swapops.h:204!
> Mar 26 10:15:55 ci-worker-arm64-07 kernel: Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 
> [#1] SMP
> 
> Linux kernel from before the last point release:
> Linux version 5.10.0-12-arm64 (debian-kernel@lists.debian.org) (gcc-10 
> (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2>
> 
> ============ ci-worker-arm64-08 ==============
> Mar 25 22:13:44 ci-worker-arm64-08 kernel: kernel BUG at 
> include/linux/swapops.h:204!
> Mar 25 22:13:44 ci-worker-arm64-08 kernel: Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 
> [#1] SMP

Do these errors still occur? Still with 5.10.103-1 or a later one?
Is it only on arm64 machines? Or is this just an example which also occurs
on other arches?
Is it possible to try newer kernel versions from Stable-backports to see
whether the issue occurs there too?

If it still occurs, then the likely only way to get a possible resolve is 
reporting it to upstream. For 'swapops.h' that should be this:

~/dev/kernel.org/linux$ scripts/get_maintainer.pl include/linux/swapops.h
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list)

But I'm not sure that's the right list as it is from the include directory,
so the actual problem may be somewhere else.
But I guess it would be a good start?

Cheers,
  Diederik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: