Description of problem: 32-bit and 64-bit misalign and misaligned_offset tests fail on ppc Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): -77 and -53 kernels, userspace packages updated to 20070130 tree. libhugetlbfs-1.2-3.el5 is needed to reproduce this bug which is only in the 5.2 trees. How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Install/build libhugetlbfs 2.echo 25 > /proc/sys/nr_hugepages mkdir /hugepage ; mount -t hugetlbfs none /hugepage run_tests -Vv -t func ( in libhugetlbfs/tests directory) 3. You may instead run the /kernel/vm/hugepage/libhugetlbfs-tests in RHTS Actual results: 32-bit and 64-bit misalign and misaligned_offset tests always fail on ppc Expected results: Tests pass as they do on i386, x86_64 Additional info: kernel is spewing mm/memory.c:117: bad pmd c0000001dd730e81. whenever the above tests run/fail. The address looks to be the same each time Note: 5.1 kernel fails in the same way, however you need to install libhugetlbfs-1.2-3.el5, otherwise you won't see this failure, but the straddle 4GB tests fail on 5.1 (with the old hugetlbfs packages)
------- Comment From aravam.com 2008-02-28 12:56 EDT------- (In reply to comment #2) > ------- Comment From mgahagan 2008-02-04 17:19 EST------- > Description of problem: > > 32-bit and 64-bit misalign and misaligned_offset tests fail on ppc > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > -77 and -53 kernels, userspace packages updated to 20070130 tree. > libhugetlbfs-1.2-3.el5 is needed to reproduce this bug which is only in the 5.2 > trees. Hrm, this is not a huge deal. Testcases might fail because the library tracks mainline not the distros. I believe these testcases failing is expected since we haven't backported the kernel fix to RH5.2 -- I don't believe it's super urgent to do so, either. I will wait for Adam to return from vacation to confirm that, though. For reference, the upstream fix is dec4ad86c2fbea062e9ef9caa6d6e79f7c5e0b12 "hugepage: fix broken check for offset alignment in hugepage mappings". > How reproducible: > Always > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1.Install/build libhugetlbfs > 2.echo 25 > /proc/sys/nr_hugepages > mkdir /hugepage ; mount -t hugetlbfs none /hugepage > run_tests -Vv -t func ( in libhugetlbfs/tests directory) > 3. You may instead run the /kernel/vm/hugepage/libhugetlbfs-tests in RHTS > > Actual results: > 32-bit and 64-bit misalign and misaligned_offset tests always fail on ppc > > Expected results: > > Tests pass as they do on i386, x86_64 > > Additional info: > > kernel is spewing mm/memory.c:117: bad pmd c0000001dd730e81. whenever the above > tests run/fail. The address looks to be the same each time > > Note: > 5.1 kernel fails in the same way, however you need to install > libhugetlbfs-1.2-3.el5, otherwise you won't see this failure, but the straddle > 4GB tests fail on 5.1 (with the old hugetlbfs packages) Do the straddle 4G tests fail with 5.2 as well?
Created attachment 296957 [details] libhugetlbfs test results for the -84.el5 kernel
I can't run the straddle 4G with my automated test since that test comes from the old hugepage userspace package that was in 5.0/5.1. I will see if I can get the latest kernel on a 5.1 userspace and run the test suite manually and package the results and attach them here this week.
------- Comment From aravam.com 2008-03-07 19:37 EDT------- From the libhugetlbfs development team's perspective, it is ok for these test to fail on RH5.2's kernel.The bugs those tests expose relate to carefully crafted mmap() calls. libhugetlbfs will never issue such calls. The testsuite provide with libhugetlbfs tracks mainline bugs/fixes, however, not necessarily related directly to any of libhugetlbfs' behavior. We do not believe it is necessary to track down the upstream commits and backport them to the 5.2 release.
Created attachment 297985 [details] hugetlbfs test results for RHEL 5.1
Created attachment 297986 [details] hugetlbfs test results for RHEL 5.1 + -85 kernel
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".
------- Comment From litke.com 2008-07-25 13:34 EDT------- Rejecting this bug as per Nishanth Aravamudan's comment: <quote> From the libhugetlbfs development team's perspective, it is ok for these test to fail on RH5.2's kernel.The bugs those tests expose relate to carefully crafted mmap() calls. libhugetlbfs will never issue such calls. The testsuite provide with libhugetlbfs tracks mainline bugs/fixes, however, not necessarily related directly to any of libhugetlbfs' behavior. We do not believe it is necessary to track down the upstream commits and backport them to the 5.2 release. </quote>
Unfortunately the previous automated notification about the non-inclusion of this request in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.3 used the wrong text template. It should have read: this request has been reviewed by Product Management and is not planned for inclusion in the current minor release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If you would like this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?" or raise an exception.
Hello, Per request of engineering I am closing this issue. Thank You Joe Kachuck