From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Layton Subject: Re: SLUB cifs_request: kmem_cache_destroy called for cache that still has objects. Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:02:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20120516070220.3d1d0806@tlielax.poochiereds.net> References: <20120515204642.1a5bedee@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4FB3451B.5020704@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve French , linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Suresh Jayaraman Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FB3451B.5020704-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:41:39 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > On 05/16/2012 09:30 AM, Steve French wrote: > > I don't see that on my rc7 system and I have slub debugging and > > various other debugging options on in my rc7 config. Let me know if > > you find a way to reproduce it or want me to try with your config. > > > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > >> I saw this today when unplugging cifs.ko in a stock -rc7 kernel. I > >> never mounted any cifs mounts, so this is entirely due to module > >> initialization as far as I can tell: > >> > >> [ 464.776843] SLUB cifs_request: kmem_cache_destroy called for cache that still has objects. > >> [ 464.779071] Pid: 4738, comm: rmmod Not tainted 3.4.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc18.x86_64 #1 > >> [ 464.780243] Call Trace: > >> [ 464.780433] [] kmem_cache_destroy+0x2ba/0x360 > >> [ 464.780870] [] cifs_destroy_request_bufs+0x21/0x3b [cifs] > >> [ 464.781397] [] exit_cifs+0x30/0x98a [cifs] > >> [ 464.781944] [] sys_delete_module+0x16e/0x2d0 > >> [ 464.782482] [] ? filp_close+0x66/0xa0 > >> [ 464.782903] [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > >> > >> ...any ideas? > > Sounds to me like a slub problem affecting random modules that could be > fixed by this patch > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/78106 > > If you are able to reliably reproduce, it is worth giving the patch a > shot. But, I could be totally wrong too... > Thanks for the pointer. That seems to have fixed it. I'll see if I can reply to the thread and give them a "Tested-by" as well... Thanks! -- Jeff Layton