On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:59:46PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:Just did that.
Andrew Morton wrote:On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:03:52 +0800 Tao Ma <tao.ma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:with 2.6.29, ls shows the same output.
Hi list,fs/proc/kcore.c hasn't changed since October last year. Was 2.6.29 OK?
In 2.6.30-rc8, /proc/kcore in x86_64's size is unreasonable large to be 281474974617600.
While in a x86 box, it is 931131392 which looks sane.
[root@test8 ~]# ll /proc/kcore
-r-------- 1 root root 281474974617600 Jun 5 11:15 /proc/kcore
[root@ocfs2-test9 ~]$ ll /proc/kcore
-r-------- 1 root root 931131392 Jun 5 11:58 /proc/kcore
I just noticed this when kexec fails in "Can't find kernel text map area from kcore".
Is there something wrong?
Earlier kernels?
[root@test8 ~]# ll /proc/kcore
-r-------- 1 root root 281474974617600 Jun 5 14:35 /proc/kcore
Thanks.
It looks like the value of 'high_memory' is insane..
Can you get its value on your machine? You can add a printk() or use
systemtap etc..