> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > debug output is:
> >
> >
http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/log-Thu_Apr_10_10_41_16_CEST_2008.bad.rc9
> >
> > so it's probably the first few page allocations (setup_cpu_cache())
> > going wrong already - suggesting a some fundamental borkage in SLAB?
>
> Well, I think it suggests some fundamental borkage in the page
> allocator.
>
> That first warn-on is from the "alloc_pages_node()" returning NULL at
> bootup. Sure, it could be that the arguments are bogus, but that
> sounds unlikely since none of that is dependent on any kconfig stuff.
>
> The fact that it happens with both SLUB/SLAB makes that even more
> obvious.
>
> Now, you don't have fault injection on, so it can't be that, and your
> debug entry for *z == NULL didn' trigger in alloc_pages, so it's no
> that one either.
>
> However, if __alloc_pages() failed, I would have expected to see the
> "memory allocation failed" printk. Why didn't it? Is
> printk_ratelimit() broken at boot (last_msg start out as zero - maybe
> i should start out as a negative number)?