This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.25, for which there
are no fixes in the mainline I know of. If any of them have been fixed already,
please let me know.
If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.25, please let me know
either and I'll add them to the list. Also, please let me know if any of the
entries below are invalid.
Each entry from the list will be sent additionally in an automatic reply to
this message with CCs to the people involved in reporting and handling the
issue.
Listed regressions statistics:
Date Total Pending Unresolved
----------------------------------------
2008-06-14 130 37 28
2008-06-07 125 48 33
2008-05-31 115 52 31
2008-05-24 94 47 28
2008-05-18 80 51 37
2008-05-11 53 46 34
Unresolved regressions
----------------------
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10912
Subject : Regressions in the last kernels
Submitter : werner <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-14 18:26 (1 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121346933911641&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
Subject : IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-13 8:19 (2 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121334523711437&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10906
Subject : repeatable slab corruption with LTP msgctl08
Submitter : Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-12 5:13 (3 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121324775927704&w=4
Handled-By : Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10903
Subject : ssh connections hang with 2.6.26-rc5
Submitter : Didier Raboud <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-13 02:39 (2 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892
Subject : Sometime (often) X come out blank (black screen) on cold boot - Intel chipset
Submitter : Romano Giannetti <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-10 05:33 (5 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/10/137
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10868
Subject : Oops on loading ipaq module since 2.6.26, prevents use of device
Submitter : Adam Williamson <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 17:39 (10 days old)
Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10866
Subject : /dev/rtc was missing until I disabled CONFIG_RTC_CLASS
Submitter : Lior Dotan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 15:04 (10 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10865
Subject : i get the following oops trying to mount an ntfs partition on thinkpad
Submitter : Alex Romosan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 14:47 (10 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834421414&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864
Subject : [regression][bisected] ~90,000 wakeups as of 2.6.26-rc3
Submitter : Németh Márton <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-03 5:18 (12 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121247101601790&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10862
Subject : forcedeth: lockdep warning on ethtool -s
Submitter : Tobias Diedrich <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-01 8:37 (14 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121230964032247&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10861
Subject : 2.6.26-rc4-git2 - long pause during boot
Submitter : Chris Clayton <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-01 4:15 (14 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121229382917834&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10860
Subject : total system freeze at boot with 2.6.26-rc
Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 12:38 (10 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA framebuffer
Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10827
Subject : 2.6.26rc4 GFS2 oops.
Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-27 15:44 (19 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/297
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10826
Subject : NFS oops in 2.6.26rc4
Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-27 19:04 (19 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121191548915522&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10821
Subject : rt25xx: lock dependency warning, association failure, and kmalloc corruption
Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-29 14:30 (17 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10819
Subject : Fatal DMA error with b43 driver since 2.6.26
Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-29 13:16 (17 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10799
Subject : sky2 general protection fault
Submitter : Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-26 11:05 (20 days old)
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10786
Subject : 2.6.26-rc3 64bit SMP does not boot on J5600
Submitter : Domenico Andreoli <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-22 16:14 (24 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121147328028081&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10764
Subject : some serial configurations are now broken
Submitter : Russell King <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-20 7:35 (26 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121126931810706&w=2
Handled-By : Javier Herrero <[email protected]>
Russell King <[email protected]>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10741
Subject : bug in `tty: BKL pushdown'?
Submitter : Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-18 2:16 (28 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121107706506181&w=4
Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10725
Subject : Write protect on on
Submitter : Maciej Rutecki <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 14:55 (30 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121095168003572&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10714
Subject : Badness seen on 2.6.26-rc2 with lockdep enabled
Submitter : Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-14 12:57 (32 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121076917429133&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10711
Subject : BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request - scsi_bus_uevent
Submitter : Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-14 11:23 (32 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/14/111
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10642
Subject : general protection fault: 0000 [1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
Submitter : Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-07 16:03 (39 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/7/48
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10629
Subject : 2.6.26-rc1-$sha1: RIP __d_lookup+0x8c/0x160
Submitter : Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-05 09:59 (41 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/5/28
Handled-By : Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9791
Subject : Clock is running too fast^Wslow using acpi_pm clocksource
Submitter : [email protected]
Date : 2008-05-03 05:09 (43 days old)
Regressions with patches
------------------------
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10905
Subject : 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
Submitter : Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-21 13:30 (25 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/21/131
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/12/121
Handled-By : Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/28/42
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
Subject : two different oopses with 2.6.26-rc4
Submitter : Alejandro Riveira Fernández <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-28 9:50 (18 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121196833026310&w=4
Handled-By : Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/20/683
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10828
Subject : [2.6.25-git18 => 2.6.26-rc1-git1] Xorg crash with xf86MapVidMem error
Submitter : Rufus & Azrael <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-04 10:24 (42 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/4/37
Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]>
Pallipadi, Venkatesh <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/29/371
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10815
Subject : 2.6.26-rc4: RIP find_pid_ns+0x6b/0xa0
Submitter : Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-27 09:23 (19 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/9
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/87
Handled-By : Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/28/16
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10794
Subject : mips: CONF_CM_DEFAULT build error
Submitter : Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-25 10:11 (21 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/168
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/295
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/1/125
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10730
Subject : build issue #503 for v2.6.26-rc2-433-gf26a398 : undefined reference to `request_firmware'
Submitter : Toralf Förster <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 17:06 (30 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121095777616792&w=4
Handled-By : James Bottomley <[email protected]>
Patch : http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=121101871800303&w=4
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10726
Subject : x86-64 NODES_SHIFT compile failure.
Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 12:54 (30 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/16/312
Handled-By : Mike Travis <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/16/343
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
Subject : ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE
Submitter : Justin Mattock <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 6:17 (30 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121091875711824&w=4
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/18/168
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/195
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/195
Patch : debug EC GPE
debug EC GPE
debug EC GPE
debug EC GPE
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16364&action=view
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16365&action=view
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16364&action=view
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16365&action=view
debug EC GPE</a>
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10493
Subject : mips BCM47XX compile error
Submitter : Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-04-20 17:07 (56 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/20/34
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/12/30
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/18/131
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/31/202
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/154
Patch : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120876451216558&w=2
For details, please visit the bug entries and follow the links given in
references.
As you can see, there is a Bugzilla entry for each of the listed regressions.
There also is a Bugzilla entry used for tracking the regressions from 2.6.25,
unresolved as well as resolved, at:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10492
Please let me know if there are any Bugzilla entries that should be added to
the list in there.
Thanks,
Rafael
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10493
Subject : mips BCM47XX compile error
Submitter : Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-04-20 17:07 (56 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/20/34
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/12/30
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/18/131
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/31/202
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/154
Patch : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120876451216558&w=2
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10629
Subject : 2.6.26-rc1-$sha1: RIP __d_lookup+0x8c/0x160
Submitter : Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-05 09:59 (41 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/5/28
Handled-By : Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10711
Subject : BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request - scsi_bus_uevent
Submitter : Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-14 11:23 (32 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/14/111
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10642
Subject : general protection fault: 0000 [1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
Submitter : Zdenek Kabelac <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-07 16:03 (39 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/7/48
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10714
Subject : Badness seen on 2.6.26-rc2 with lockdep enabled
Submitter : Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-14 12:57 (32 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121076917429133&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
Subject : ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE
Submitter : Justin Mattock <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 6:17 (30 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121091875711824&w=4
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/18/168
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/195
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/195
Patch : debug EC GPE
debug EC GPE
debug EC GPE
debug EC GPE
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16364&action=view
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16365&action=view
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16364&action=view
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16365&action=view
debug EC GPE</a>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10726
Subject : x86-64 NODES_SHIFT compile failure.
Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 12:54 (30 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/16/312
Handled-By : Mike Travis <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/16/343
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10730
Subject : build issue #503 for v2.6.26-rc2-433-gf26a398 : undefined reference to `request_firmware'
Submitter : Toralf Förster <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 17:06 (30 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121095777616792&w=4
Handled-By : James Bottomley <[email protected]>
Patch : http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=121101871800303&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10741
Subject : bug in `tty: BKL pushdown'?
Submitter : Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-18 2:16 (28 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121107706506181&w=4
Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10725
Subject : Write protect on on
Submitter : Maciej Rutecki <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-16 14:55 (30 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121095168003572&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10764
Subject : some serial configurations are now broken
Submitter : Russell King <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-20 7:35 (26 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121126931810706&w=2
Handled-By : Javier Herrero <[email protected]>
Russell King <[email protected]>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10786
Subject : 2.6.26-rc3 64bit SMP does not boot on J5600
Submitter : Domenico Andreoli <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-22 16:14 (24 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121147328028081&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10799
Subject : sky2 general protection fault
Submitter : Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-26 11:05 (20 days old)
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10794
Subject : mips: CONF_CM_DEFAULT build error
Submitter : Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-25 10:11 (21 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/168
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/295
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/1/125
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10815
Subject : 2.6.26-rc4: RIP find_pid_ns+0x6b/0xa0
Submitter : Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-27 09:23 (19 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/9
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/87
Handled-By : Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/28/16
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10819
Subject : Fatal DMA error with b43 driver since 2.6.26
Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-29 13:16 (17 days old)
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10821
Subject : rt25xx: lock dependency warning, association failure, and kmalloc corruption
Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-29 14:30 (17 days old)
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10826
Subject : NFS oops in 2.6.26rc4
Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-27 19:04 (19 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121191548915522&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10827
Subject : 2.6.26rc4 GFS2 oops.
Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-27 15:44 (19 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/297
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10828
Subject : [2.6.25-git18 => 2.6.26-rc1-git1] Xorg crash with xf86MapVidMem error
Submitter : Rufus & Azrael <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-04 10:24 (42 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/4/37
Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]>
Pallipadi, Venkatesh <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/29/371
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA framebuffer
Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10830
Subject : two different oopses with 2.6.26-rc4
Submitter : Alejandro Riveira Fernández <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-28 9:50 (18 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121196833026310&w=4
Handled-By : Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/20/683
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10860
Subject : total system freeze at boot with 2.6.26-rc
Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 12:38 (10 days old)
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10861
Subject : 2.6.26-rc4-git2 - long pause during boot
Submitter : Chris Clayton <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-01 4:15 (14 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121229382917834&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10865
Subject : i get the following oops trying to mount an ntfs partition on thinkpad
Submitter : Alex Romosan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 14:47 (10 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834421414&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864
Subject : [regression][bisected] ~90,000 wakeups as of 2.6.26-rc3
Submitter : Németh Márton <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-03 5:18 (12 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121247101601790&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10862
Subject : forcedeth: lockdep warning on ethtool -s
Submitter : Tobias Diedrich <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-01 8:37 (14 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121230964032247&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10868
Subject : Oops on loading ipaq module since 2.6.26, prevents use of device
Submitter : Adam Williamson <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 17:39 (10 days old)
Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10866
Subject : /dev/rtc was missing until I disabled CONFIG_RTC_CLASS
Submitter : Lior Dotan <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 15:04 (10 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121267834521432&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892
Subject : Sometime (often) X come out blank (black screen) on cold boot - Intel chipset
Submitter : Romano Giannetti <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-10 05:33 (5 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/10/137
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10903
Subject : ssh connections hang with 2.6.26-rc5
Submitter : Didier Raboud <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-13 02:39 (2 days old)
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10905
Subject : 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
Submitter : Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-05-21 13:30 (25 days old)
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/21/131
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/12/121
Handled-By : Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/28/42
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10906
Subject : repeatable slab corruption with LTP msgctl08
Submitter : Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-12 5:13 (3 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121324775927704&w=4
Handled-By : Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Manfred Spraul <[email protected]>
Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
Subject : IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-13 8:19 (2 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121334523711437&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10912
Subject : Regressions in the last kernels
Submitter : werner <[email protected]>
Date : 2008-06-14 18:26 (1 days old)
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121346933911641&w=4
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9791
Subject : Clock is running too fast^Wslow using acpi_pm clocksource
Submitter : [email protected]
Date : 2008-05-03 05:09 (43 days old)
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:12:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
yes
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10794
> Subject : mips: CONF_CM_DEFAULT build error
> Submitter : Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-25 10:11 (21 days old)
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/168
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/295
> Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/1/125
cu
Adrian
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
yes
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10493
> Subject : mips BCM47XX compile error
> Submitter : Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-04-20 17:07 (56 days old)
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/20/34
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/12/30
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/18/131
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/31/202
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/154
> Patch : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120876451216558&w=2
cu
Adrian
On Saturday 14 June 2008 22:12:03 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10819
> Subject : Fatal DMA error with b43 driver since 2.6.26
> Submitter : Christian Casteyde <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-29 13:16 (17 days old)
This regression is fixed by
21691a38db9d465a109c5ec25cd3956a18cfcf5d
Author: Michael Buesch <[email protected]> 2008-06-12 15:33:13
Committer: John W. Linville <[email protected]> 2008-06-14 01:18:58
Parent: 9983f35f12b8be71d13b8aca6dbf781d3342c7aa (rt2x00: LEDS build failure)
Child: 33593dbf334869456167bc66511bc54c4ba39dc5 (mac80211 : fix for iwconfig in ad-hoc mode)
Branches: master, remotes/origin/master
Follows: merge-2008-06-14
Precedes: master-2008-06-14
ssb: Fix coherent DMA mask for PCI devices
This fixes setting the coherent DMA mask for PCI devices.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <[email protected]>
------------------------------ drivers/ssb/main.c ------------------------------
index 7cf8851..d184f2a 100644
@@ -1168,15 +1168,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ssb_dma_translation);
int ssb_dma_set_mask(struct ssb_device *ssb_dev, u64 mask)
{
struct device *dma_dev = ssb_dev->dma_dev;
+ int err = 0;
#ifdef CONFIG_SSB_PCIHOST
- if (ssb_dev->bus->bustype == SSB_BUSTYPE_PCI)
- return dma_set_mask(dma_dev, mask);
+ if (ssb_dev->bus->bustype == SSB_BUSTYPE_PCI) {
+ err = pci_set_dma_mask(ssb_dev->bus->host_pci, mask);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+ err = pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(ssb_dev->bus->host_pci, mask);
+ return err;
+ }
#endif
dma_dev->coherent_dma_mask = mask;
dma_dev->dma_mask = &dma_dev->coherent_dma_mask;
- return 0;
+ return err;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ssb_dma_set_mask);
--
Greetings Michael.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10912
> Subject : Regressions in the last kernels
> Submitter : werner <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-14 18:26 (1 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121346933911641&w=4
I don't believe this is a regression, at least the 8GB thing. The
HIGHMEM64G config option has had a
depends on !M386 && !M486
for quite a while now. It certainly was in 2.6.25 already.
So if you want PAE support, we do require that you ask for a kernel that
has cmpxchg8b support (needed for the atomic 64-bit clearing of a PAE page
table entry). Not to mention a CPU that supports PAE. And that is simply
incompatible with "I want it to work on an i486 too".
So saying "I want a kernel that uses PAE _and_ works on an i486" is simply
nonsensical. If we ever supported it, it was a mistake, and wouldn't have
actually worked on an i486 anyway.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
> Subject : IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
> Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-13 8:19 (2 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121334523711437&w=4
I think this got fixed by ec0a196626bd12e0ba108d7daa6d95a4fb25c2c5: "tcp:
Revert 'process defer accept as established' changes".
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10903
> Subject : ssh connections hang with 2.6.26-rc5
> Submitter : Didier Raboud <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-13 02:39 (2 days old)
I think this is likely fixed by the same revert as above.
David?
Linus
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST)
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10868
> Subject : Oops on loading ipaq module since 2.6.26, prevents use of device
> Submitter : Adam Williamson <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-05 17:39 (10 days old)
> Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
Still waiting for the actual attached result of the test patch to debug
this further. Guess it will miss 2.6.26
On Saturday 14 June 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA
> framebuffer
> Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.25, please let me know
> either and I'll add them to the list. Also, please let me know if any of the
> entries below are invalid.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/62
was just reported today. Seems to have been caused by
commit 3ac7fe5a4aab409bd5674d0b070bce97f9d20872
Author: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Apr 30 00:55:01 2008 -0700
infrastructure to debug (dynamic) objects
which was introduced just after v2.6.25, but not discovered until now,
probably because it requires the (admittedly obscure) combination of
lockdep and slub/object debugging.
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't believe this is a regression, at least the 8GB thing. The
> HIGHMEM64G config option has had a
>
> depends on !M386 && !M486
>
> for quite a while now. It certainly was in 2.6.25 already.
>
> So if you want PAE support, we do require that you ask for a kernel that
> has cmpxchg8b support (needed for the atomic 64-bit clearing of a PAE page
> table entry). Not to mention a CPU that supports PAE. And that is simply
> incompatible with "I want it to work on an i486 too".
>
> So saying "I want a kernel that uses PAE _and_ works on an i486" is simply
> nonsensical. If we ever supported it, it was a mistake, and wouldn't have
> actually worked on an i486 anyway.
From what you have written it looks the dependency should actually be:
depends on !M386 && !M486 && !M586 && !M586TSC && !M586MMX
as none of the pre-Pentium-Pro processors had the PAE feature (I am not
sure about non-Intel implementations, so the case of M586 would have to be
investigated). It was originally planned for the Pentium, but abandoned
because of the die size required -- the details behind the story were
obviously never very well known, but it was definitely related to some
cost implications. The feature was reportedly documented in the earlier
not-so-widely-available revisions of the Pentium manuals and later on
removed while some of the other stuff was migrated to the (in)famous
Appendix H. This also explains the odd location of the PAE bits among the
CPUID flags and in the CR4 register, which was initially marked as
reserved.
Maciej
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10724
> Subject : ACPI: EC: GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE
> Submitter : Justin Mattock <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-16 6:17 (30 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121091875711824&w=4
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/18/168
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/195
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/25/195
> Patch : debug EC GPE
> debug EC GPE
> debug EC GPE
> debug EC GPE
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16364&action=view
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16365&action=view
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16364&action=view
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=16365&action=view
> debug EC GPE</a>
>
>
>
I've just pulled the latest git, and applied the latest patch that was
sent to me, I'm not seeing this message at the moment.
I am unsure if the problem is fixed or not.
--
Justin P. Mattock
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:12:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10714
> Subject : Badness seen on 2.6.26-rc2 with lockdep enabled
> Submitter : Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-14 12:57 (32 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121076917429133&w=4
Benjamin, you said you wanted to have a look at this?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
> > Subject : IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
> > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-06-13 8:19 (2 days old)
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121334523711437&w=4
>
> I think this got fixed by ec0a196626bd12e0ba108d7daa6d95a4fb25c2c5: "tcp:
> Revert 'process defer accept as established' changes".
No, this is looking like a different bug.
The behavior of that bug would not usually be a crash, but
rather stuck connections, and I severely doubt anything in
that specweb test setup is using the deferred-accept option
which is a requirement for hitting those problems.
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10903
> > Subject : ssh connections hang with 2.6.26-rc5
> > Submitter : Didier Raboud <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-06-13 02:39 (2 days old)
>
> I think this is likely fixed by the same revert as above.
I think this is also a seperate bug. Ilpo has asked the reporter for
more information.
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 02:04 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:12:02PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10714
> > Subject : Badness seen on 2.6.26-rc2 with lockdep enabled
> > Submitter : Balbir Singh <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-05-14 12:57 (32 days old)
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121076917429133&w=4
>
> Benjamin, you said you wanted to have a look at this?
Ah yes, slipped out of my mind. It's probably a missing annotation in
the RTAS code, I'll have a look tomorrow.
Thanks,
Ben.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> From what you have written it looks the dependency should actually be:
>
> depends on !M386 && !M486 && !M586 && !M586TSC && !M586MMX
>
> as none of the pre-Pentium-Pro processors had the PAE feature (I am not
> sure about non-Intel implementations, so the case of M586 would have to be
> investigated).
Yes, it's the non-intel ones that would keep me from saying !M586.
For intel, PAE was a PPro feature (at least officially, as you point out),
but I do not know about various other manufacturers. From personal
experience, the line between Pentium and PPro features doesn't tend to be
totally black-and-white (although I suspect that when it comes to PAE it
_may_ be).
Linus
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10908
> > > Subject : IPF Montvale machine panic when running a network-relevent testing
> > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <[email protected]>
> > > Date : 2008-06-13 8:19 (2 days old)
> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121334523711437&w=4
> >
> > I think this got fixed by ec0a196626bd12e0ba108d7daa6d95a4fb25c2c5: "tcp:
> > Revert 'process defer accept as established' changes".
>
> No, this is looking like a different bug.
Are you sure? Because that revert seems to basically revert all changes
since 2.6.25 in tcp_rcv_established(), which is the function that oopses.
After that revert, the function is back to exactly what it used to be.
Of course, inlining makes it less obvious what other changes end up doing,
but even the offset in the function (not quite at the very end of it, but
not that far off that end either) matches where you'd expect that that
'tcp_defer_accept_check()' thing used to be before the revert.
Also: see the report saying
"As a matter of fact, kernel paniced at statement
"queue->rskq_accept_tail->dl_next = req" in function reqsk_queue_add,
because queue->rskq_accept_tail is NULL. The call chain is:
tcp_rcv_established => inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add => reqsk_queue_add."
and realize that that whole inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add() call only exists
in that tcp_defer_accept_check() thing that no longer exists.
IOW, I'm pretty damn sure that the bug entry above is very much a result
of the tcp_defer_accept_check() thing, and that commit ec0a196626 fixed
it by reverting it.
> The behavior of that bug would not usually be a crash, but
> rather stuck connections, and I severely doubt anything in
> that specweb test setup is using the deferred-accept option
> which is a requirement for hitting those problems.
Hey, I might be wrong. But see above. I don't think I am. I think the
deferred-accept was just even buggier than you believed.
But who knows.
Linus
From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
> IOW, I'm pretty damn sure that the bug entry above is very much a result
> of the tcp_defer_accept_check() thing, and that commit ec0a196626 fixed
> it by reverting it.
I agree with the gist of your analysis.
And it seems that Apache does try to use the deferred accept socket
option. So we may indeed have a hit on this IA64 bug.
The wording in the report about versions is a little confusing:
With kernel 2.6.26-rc5 and a git kernel just between rc4
and rc5, my kernel panic...
Does this mean that the problem appeared between rc4 and rc5? Or
that all 2.6.26-rcX releases have the problem? That's an important
fact because the change in question showed up in 2.6.26-rc1, as it
came in the inital networking merge for the 2.6.26 merge window.
> > The behavior of that bug would not usually be a crash, but
> > rather stuck connections, and I severely doubt anything in
> > that specweb test setup is using the deferred-accept option
> > which is a requirement for hitting those problems.
>
> Hey, I might be wrong. But see above. I don't think I am. I think the
> deferred-accept was just even buggier than you believed.
Because of the requirements to trigger the new code, this case is
not likely to match the revert. SSH absolutely does not use the
deferred accept socket option.
Let's look at the change in question.
Every single code path touched in the data paths are guarded
with "tp->defer_tcp_accept.request" which will be NULL unless
1) defer-accept socket option enabled and 2) a new connection
got queued up there.
Nothing about the normal accept queue handling got modified by those
changes which were reverted.
And note that this means the behavior change only hits listening
sockets. So if we have a report that client outgoing SSH
connections hang with the current kernel, that report cannot
reasonably match this revert.
I also anticipate that if this change could trigger problems for
non-deferred-accept cases, we'd see a ton more reports than we have.
And we did some research and one of the only major servers that use
this obscure defer-accept feature is distcc and apache. It is this
element of Ingo's bug report (that he uses distcc heavily and it was a
distcc socket which hung) that helped us narrow things down.
The SSH report clearly states "With kernel 2.6.26-rc5, ssh connections
to _remote_ servers randomly hang". So this is a report about SSH
client connections under 2.6.26-rc5, not SSH server connections and
therefore not listening sockets.
So right now I'd say that the IA64 case could definitely be a match
but the SSH case very much is not.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:
>
> So right now I'd say that the IA64 case could definitely be a match
> but the SSH case very much is not.
Ok. The only reason I matched up the ssh case was because it was reported
to fix the stuck connections that Ingo had with distcc-over-loopback, so I
thought the stuck-ssh thing could be the same.
But if you are sure ssh doesn't trigger the same thing, I really didn't
have anything else to go on than "stuck TCP connection sounds familiar".
Linus
On Saturday 14 June 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10861
> Subject : 2.6.26-rc4-git2 - long pause during boot
> Submitter : Chris Clayton <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-01 4:15 (14 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121229382917834&w=4
Well, we know how to create (and to avoid) the problem. Since the original patch
adversely affects existing user space, it could be argued that it is a
regression, but I see that there is a counter argument that the udev rule that
triggers the problem is quite simply a bad rule.
I'll leave to those more closely concerned that rule on that.
Thanks
Chris
--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Hi,
I already mentioned at the bug report that 2.6.26-rc6 this is fixed.
Maybe tell your robot to first check the latest activities in the bug
report since the last -rc release. What I want also to tell your robot
that it should mention what actions should be taken in case the bug
should be still listed or when the bug can be closed.
Regards,
Márton Németh
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864
> Subject : [regression][bisected] ~90,000 wakeups as of 2.6.26-rc3
> Submitter : Németh Márton <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-03 5:18 (12 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121247101601790&w=4
>
>
>
>
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 22:26 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST)
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10868
> > Subject : Oops on loading ipaq module since 2.6.26, prevents use of device
> > Submitter : Adam Williamson <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-06-05 17:39 (10 days old)
> > Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
>
> Still waiting for the actual attached result of the test patch to debug
> this further. Guess it will miss 2.6.26
I replied via email - as you requested earlier in the thread - and
attached the result to that email. Did you not get it?
--
adamw
* N?meth M?rton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I already mentioned at the bug report that 2.6.26-rc6 this is fixed.
>
> Maybe tell your robot to first check the latest activities in the bug
> report since the last -rc release. What I want also to tell your robot
> that it should mention what actions should be taken in case the bug
> should be still listed or when the bug can be closed.
i think the current regression tracking methods that Rafael uses work
very well and i'd like to thank Rafael for those efforts - to me as a
subsystem maintainer it is a _very_ useful thing.
In this case there was no real harm from the "this bug is already fixed"
condition - just an extra email. Real harm would only come from missed
regressions or from incorrectly closed regressions - but those are not
happening.
note that there is no "robot" involved in changing the state of bugs -
the real important work here is done by Rafael and checking whether a
bug is still relevant is an inevitably manual work. The mails and
reports are auto-generated but crawling discussions and determining the
status of a regression is very hard to automate.
Ingo
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * N?meth M?rton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I already mentioned at the bug report that 2.6.26-rc6 this is fixed.
>>
>> Maybe tell your robot to first check the latest activities in the bug
>> report since the last -rc release. What I want also to tell your robot
>> that it should mention what actions should be taken in case the bug
>> should be still listed or when the bug can be closed.
>
> i think the current regression tracking methods that Rafael uses work
> very well and i'd like to thank Rafael for those efforts - to me as a
> subsystem maintainer it is a _very_ useful thing.
>
> In this case there was no real harm from the "this bug is already fixed"
> condition - just an extra email. Real harm would only come from missed
> regressions or from incorrectly closed regressions - but those are not
> happening.
>
> note that there is no "robot" involved in changing the state of bugs -
> the real important work here is done by Rafael and checking whether a
> bug is still relevant is an inevitably manual work. The mails and
> reports are auto-generated but crawling discussions and determining the
> status of a regression is very hard to automate.
Sorry, I thought a robot missed my comments in the bug tracking system for
the second time:
1.
Comment was on 2008-06-06 13:27:16 ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864#c3 )
The mail was coming: 7 Jun 2008 22:42:57 +0200 (CEST) ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/193 )
2.
Comment was on 2008-06-13 23:19:53 ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864#c4 )
The mail was coming: 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/160 )
Nevertheless the bug #10864 can be closed I think.
Regards,
M?rton N?meth
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 22:12 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892
> Subject : Sometime (often) X come out blank (black screen) on cold boot - Intel chipset
> Submitter : Romano Giannetti <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-10 05:33 (5 days old)
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/10/137
It happened, again, with the new Ubuntu x-intel driver. Rebooting with
nousplash solved the problem, but alas, sometime simply rebooting solves
the problem. It seems a race...
Romano
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 23:59 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> \>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA
> > framebuffer
> > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
>
> Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> -
It happens to me too. Do you see
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
Romano
--
Romano Giannetti Dep. de Electr?nica y Autom?tica
http://www.dea.icai.upcomillas.es/romano Univ. Pontificia Comillas (MADRID)
--
La presente comunicaci?n tiene car?cter confidencial y es para el exclusivo uso del destinatario indicado en la misma. Si Ud. no es el destinatario indicado, le informamos que cualquier forma de distribuci?n, reproducci?n o uso de esta comunicaci?n y/o de la informaci?n contenida en la misma est?n estrictamente prohibidos por la ley. Si Ud. ha recibido esta comunicaci?n por error, por favor, notif?quelo inmediatamente al remitente contestando a este mensaje y proceda a continuaci?n a destruirlo. Gracias por su colaboraci?n.
This communication contains confidential information. It is for the exclusive use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Sunday, 15 of June 2008, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 23:59 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > \>
> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA
> > > framebuffer
> > > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
> >
> > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> > -
>
> It happens to me too. Do you see
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
Do these two bug entries refer to the same problem?
Rafael
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:22:59PM +0200, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 23:59 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > \>
> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA
> > > framebuffer
> > > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
> >
> > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> > -
>
> It happens to me too. Do you see
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
Does disabling CONFIG_X86_PAT also fix it for you?
> Romano
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sunday, 15 of June 2008, N?meth M?rton wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * N?meth M?rton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I already mentioned at the bug report that 2.6.26-rc6 this is fixed.
> >>
> >> Maybe tell your robot to first check the latest activities in the bug
> >> report since the last -rc release. What I want also to tell your robot
> >> that it should mention what actions should be taken in case the bug
> >> should be still listed or when the bug can be closed.
> >
> > i think the current regression tracking methods that Rafael uses work
> > very well and i'd like to thank Rafael for those efforts - to me as a
> > subsystem maintainer it is a _very_ useful thing.
Thanks Ingo!
> > In this case there was no real harm from the "this bug is already fixed"
> > condition - just an extra email. Real harm would only come from missed
> > regressions or from incorrectly closed regressions - but those are not
> > happening.
> >
> > note that there is no "robot" involved in changing the state of bugs -
> > the real important work here is done by Rafael and checking whether a
> > bug is still relevant is an inevitably manual work. The mails and
> > reports are auto-generated but crawling discussions and determining the
> > status of a regression is very hard to automate.
>
> Sorry, I thought a robot missed my comments in the bug tracking system for
> the second time:
>
> 1.
> Comment was on 2008-06-06 13:27:16 ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864#c3 )
> The mail was coming: 7 Jun 2008 22:42:57 +0200 (CEST) ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/193 )
>
> 2.
> Comment was on 2008-06-13 23:19:53 ( http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10864#c4 )
> The mail was coming: 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/160 )
>
> Nevertheless the bug #10864 can be closed I think.
Closed now.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Saturday, 14 of June 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10912
> > Subject : Regressions in the last kernels
> > Submitter : werner <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-06-14 18:26 (1 days old)
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121346933911641&w=4
>
> I don't believe this is a regression, at least the 8GB thing.
No, it is not. The other problem described in this message seems to be a
recent regression, though, at least the reporter thinks so.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Sunday 15 June 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 of June 2008, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> > It happens to me too.
Exactly what happens to you to? Do you also see the artifacts?
Do you also use vesafb? Do the artifacts go away if you boot
with 'video=vfb:off' to disable the framebuffer? Do they go away if you
compile a kernel without PAT or boot with 'nopat'?
> > Do you see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
No. Is that related to PAT being enabled?
> Do these two bug entries refer to the same problem?
Looks unrelated to me.
Cheers,
FJP
On Sunday, 15 of June 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.25, please let me know
> > either and I'll add them to the list. Also, please let me know if any of the
> > entries below are invalid.
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/14/62
>
> was just reported today. Seems to have been caused by
>
> commit 3ac7fe5a4aab409bd5674d0b070bce97f9d20872
> Author: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Apr 30 00:55:01 2008 -0700
>
> infrastructure to debug (dynamic) objects
>
> which was introduced just after v2.6.25, but not discovered until now,
> probably because it requires the (admittedly obscure) combination of
> lockdep and slub/object debugging.
Added to the list as http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10918 .
Thanks,
Rafael
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 12:40 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 of June 2008, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 23:59 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > \>
> > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > > > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA
> > > > framebuffer
> > > > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > > > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
> > >
> > > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> > > -
> >
> > It happens to me too. Do you see
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
>
> Do these two bug entries refer to the same problem?
>
> Rafael
I do not know, just a wild guess. I noticed the flashing color when
doing shutdown, and being Intel the common chipset...
--
Romano Giannetti Dep. de Electr?nica y Autom?tica
http://www.dea.icai.upcomillas.es/romano Univ. Pontificia Comillas (MADRID)
--
La presente comunicaci?n tiene car?cter confidencial y es para el exclusivo uso del destinatario indicado en la misma. Si Ud. no es el destinatario indicado, le informamos que cualquier forma de distribuci?n, reproducci?n o uso de esta comunicaci?n y/o de la informaci?n contenida en la misma est?n estrictamente prohibidos por la ley. Si Ud. ha recibido esta comunicaci?n por error, por favor, notif?quelo inmediatamente al remitente contestando a este mensaje y proceda a continuaci?n a destruirlo. Gracias por su colaboraci?n.
This communication contains confidential information. It is for the exclusive use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 13:25 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> > > Do you see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
>
> No. Is that related to PAT being enabled?
>
> > Do these two bug entries refer to the same problem?
>
> Looks unrelated to me.
Yes, maybe you're right. Could not test too, booting with nopat gave me
two times in a row the black screen.
Mmhhh....
Romano
--
Romano Giannetti Dep. de Electr?nica y Autom?tica
http://www.dea.icai.upcomillas.es/romano Univ. Pontificia Comillas (MADRID)
--
La presente comunicaci?n tiene car?cter confidencial y es para el exclusivo uso del destinatario indicado en la misma. Si Ud. no es el destinatario indicado, le informamos que cualquier forma de distribuci?n, reproducci?n o uso de esta comunicaci?n y/o de la informaci?n contenida en la misma est?n estrictamente prohibidos por la ley. Si Ud. ha recibido esta comunicaci?n por error, por favor, notif?quelo inmediatamente al remitente contestando a este mensaje y proceda a continuaci?n a destruirlo. Gracias por su colaboraci?n.
This communication contains confidential information. It is for the exclusive use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 13:39 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:22:59PM +0200, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> > > -
> >
> > It happens to me too. Do you see
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
>
> Does disabling CONFIG_X86_PAT also fix it for you?
Dunno. Do I need to recompile or there is some boot option to disable
it?
Rmano
--
Romano Giannetti Dep. de Electr?nica y Autom?tica
http://www.dea.icai.upcomillas.es/romano Univ. Pontificia Comillas (MADRID)
--
La presente comunicaci?n tiene car?cter confidencial y es para el exclusivo uso del destinatario indicado en la misma. Si Ud. no es el destinatario indicado, le informamos que cualquier forma de distribuci?n, reproducci?n o uso de esta comunicaci?n y/o de la informaci?n contenida en la misma est?n estrictamente prohibidos por la ley. Si Ud. ha recibido esta comunicaci?n por error, por favor, notif?quelo inmediatamente al remitente contestando a este mensaje y proceda a continuaci?n a destruirlo. Gracias por su colaboraci?n.
This communication contains confidential information. It is for the exclusive use of the intended addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 01:25:17PM +0200, Romano Giannetti wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 13:39 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:22:59PM +0200, Romano Giannetti wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> > > > -
> > >
> > > It happens to me too. Do you see
> > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10892 ?
> >
> > Does disabling CONFIG_X86_PAT also fix it for you?
>
> Dunno. Do I need to recompile or there is some boot option to disable
> it?
There's a nopat boot option.
> Rmano
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
---
~Randy
'"Daemon' is an old piece of jargon from the UNIX operating system,
where it referred to a piece of low-level utility software, a
fundamental part of the operating system."
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>> of recent regressions.
>>
>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>>
>>
>> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
>> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
>> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
>> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
>> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
>> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
>
> Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
>
please send out whole boot log with numa on and numa off
and boot with debug
please apply attached debug patch too.
YH
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 June 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel and VESA
> > framebuffer
> > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
>
> Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
Frans, With or with out pat, in the recent kernels (like 2.6.26-rc4/rc5 etc), ioremap()
uses UC- and PCI mmap of /sys/devices/pci.../resource (used by X) uses UC-
And fb_mmap() also uses UC-.
It's interesting that you don't see this artifact with "nopat". Essentially with
or with out pat enabled, we use the same memory attributes. So depending on the
MTRR setup (set by X server), effective memory attribute across different mappings
should be same (which is UC- or WC with mtrr).
Can you also check, if there is any impact with kernel boot param for vesafb "mtrr:3"?
thanks,
suresh
On Sunday 15 June 2008, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel
> > and VESA framebuffer
> > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
>
> Can you also check, if there is any impact with kernel boot param for
> vesafb "mtrr:3"?
Hello Suresh. Thanks for responding.
I've done 4 successive boots with the boot parameters as shown below.
Each boot was basically: set correct parameters in grub -> login to KDE
-> reboot and check for artifacts.
1) (none) --> clean
2) vga=791 --> artifacts
3) vga=791 nopat --> clean
4) vga=791 video=vesafb:mtrr:3 --> artifacts
So the mtrr option did not help (if I passed it correctly; the double ":"
is somewhat non-intuitive). The kernel log also does not show any
difference I can see in the last boot, but I don't know if the mtrr option
is supposed to show up in any way.
>From the kernel log for each boot:
1) x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
console [tty0] enabled
2) x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
console [tty0] enabled
vesafb: framebuffer at 0x80000000, mapped to 0xffffc20000900000, using 3072k, total 7872k
vesafb: mode is 1024x768x16, linelength=2048, pages=4
vesafb: scrolling: redraw
vesafb: Truecolor: size=0:5:6:5, shift=0:11:5:0
Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 128x48
fb0: VESA VGA frame buffer device
3) PAT support disabled
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
console [tty0] enabled
vesafb: framebuffer at 0x80000000, mapped to 0xffffc20000900000, using 3072k, total 7872k
vesafb: mode is 1024x768x16, linelength=2048, pages=4
vesafb: scrolling: redraw
vesafb: Truecolor: size=0:5:6:5, shift=0:11:5:0
Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 128x48
fb0: VESA VGA frame buffer device
4) x86 PAT enabled: cpu 0, old 0x7040600070406, new 0x7010600070106
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
console [tty0] enabled
vesafb: framebuffer at 0x80000000, mapped to 0xffffc20000900000, using 3072k, total 7872k
vesafb: mode is 1024x768x16, linelength=2048, pages=4
vesafb: scrolling: redraw
vesafb: Truecolor: size=0:5:6:5, shift=0:11:5:0
Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 128x48
fb0: VESA VGA frame buffer device
Hope that helps. If you need any additional information, please ask.
Cheers,
FJP
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > From what you have written it looks the dependency should actually be:
> >
> > depends on !M386 && !M486 && !M586 && !M586TSC && !M586MMX
> >
> > as none of the pre-Pentium-Pro processors had the PAE feature (I am not
> > sure about non-Intel implementations, so the case of M586 would have to be
> > investigated).
>
> Yes, it's the non-intel ones that would keep me from saying !M586.
>
> For intel, PAE was a PPro feature (at least officially, as you point out),
> but I do not know about various other manufacturers. From personal
> experience, the line between Pentium and PPro features doesn't tend to be
> totally black-and-white (although I suspect that when it comes to PAE it
> _may_ be).
Well, PAE is quite a significant block to implement and Intel kept it
hidden until they published the long awaited PentiumPro manual sometime in
1996. I am fairly sure the K5 did not implement it (it may have had PSE
and VME, especially in the later revisions) and Google does not show up
any Cyrix processors with PAE. I may have a K5 manual somewhere, so I can
see if I can verify it.
Please also note these processors tried to compete with Intel on the
desktop market where 4GB of RAM was completely unreasonable in late 90s.
I think unless someone can recall a counter-example, it can be safely
assumed these chips did not have the PAE. We could try to extend the
dependency and see if anybody screams.
Maciej
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 04:02:10PM -0700, Frans Pop wrote:
> I've done 4 successive boots with the boot parameters as shown below.
> Each boot was basically: set correct parameters in grub -> login to KDE
> -> reboot and check for artifacts.
>
> 1) (none) --> clean
> 2) vga=791 --> artifacts
> 3) vga=791 nopat --> clean
> 4) vga=791 video=vesafb:mtrr:3 --> artifacts
>
> So the mtrr option did not help (if I passed it correctly; the double ":"
> is somewhat non-intuitive). The kernel log also does not show any
> difference I can see in the last boot, but I don't know if the mtrr option
> is supposed to show up in any way.
If the initlevel is '3', then the mtrr option will show up in /proc/mtrr
otheriwse not. In init level '5', X server will add the mtrr (irrespective
of boot option, if it's not already there) and will remove it when the X process
completes its execution.
Can you also please try if "mtrr:1" makes any difference. This will setup the
mapping as UC during boot. Apart from PAT WC mapping(which we shouldn't be using
in your current setup), UC MTRR should override all the other PAT mappings and
should be consistent across X and VT console mappings. As such, if the
problem is because of improper aliasing, then with this UC MTRR,
my understanding is that we shouldn't see any artifacts with the "mtrr:1".
with this mtrr:1, we should now see a UC mtrr setting in /proc/mtrr.
thanks,
suresh
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:18:42 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> >> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> >> of recent regressions.
> >>
> >> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> >> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
> >> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
> >> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> >> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
> >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
> >> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
> >
> > Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
> >
>
> please send out whole boot log with numa on and numa off
> and boot with debug
>
> please apply attached debug patch too.
OK, did all of that.
I should probably note that in both cases, the kernel is loaded/booted by using kexec.
Both boot logs are captured generated via netconsole.
The failing boot log is netcon-4409.log. The working boot log (CONFIG_NUMA=y) is
netcon-4410.log. Enabling CONFIG_NUMA makes the following changes:
4c4
< # Sun Jun 15 15:00:56 2008
---
> # Sun Jun 15 15:10:15 2008
241c241,246
< # CONFIG_NUMA is not set
---
> CONFIG_NUMA=y
> CONFIG_K8_NUMA=y
> CONFIG_X86_64_ACPI_NUMA=y
> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES=y
> # CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is not set
> CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=6
249a255
> CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES=y
260a267
> CONFIG_MIGRATION=y
282a290
> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_EARLY_PFN_TO_NID=y
309a318
> CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA=y
Thanks,
---
~Randy
'"Daemon' is an old piece of jargon from the UNIX operating system,
where it referred to a piece of low-level utility software, a
fundamental part of the operating system."
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:18:42 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >
>> >> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>> >> of recent regressions.
>> >>
>> >> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>> >> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
>> >> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
>> >> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
>> >> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
>> >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
>> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
>> >> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
>> >
>>
>> please send out whole boot log with numa on and numa off
>> and boot with debug
>>
>> please apply attached debug patch too.
>
> OK, did all of that.
> I should probably note that in both cases, the kernel is loaded/booted by using kexec.
> Both boot logs are captured generated via netconsole.
>
> The failing boot log is netcon-4409.log. The working boot log (CONFIG_NUMA=y) is
> netcon-4410.log. Enabling CONFIG_NUMA makes the following changes:
>
> 4c4
> < # Sun Jun 15 15:00:56 2008
> ---
>> # Sun Jun 15 15:10:15 2008
> 241c241,246
> < # CONFIG_NUMA is not set
> ---
>> CONFIG_NUMA=y
>> CONFIG_K8_NUMA=y
>> CONFIG_X86_64_ACPI_NUMA=y
>> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES=y
>> # CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is not set
>> CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=6
> 249a255
>> CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES=y
> 260a267
>> CONFIG_MIGRATION=y
> 282a290
>> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_EARLY_PFN_TO_NID=y
> 309a318
>> CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA=y
>
the print out looks all right.
any chance to use normal serial console to capture the boot log?
YH
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:18:42 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >
>> >> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>> >> of recent regressions.
>> >>
>> >> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>> >> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
>> >> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
>> >> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
>> >> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
>> >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
>> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
>> >> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
>> >
>>
>> please send out whole boot log with numa on and numa off
>> and boot with debug
>>
>> please apply attached debug patch too.
>
> OK, did all of that.
> I should probably note that in both cases, the kernel is loaded/booted by using kexec.
> Both boot logs are captured generated via netconsole.
>
> The failing boot log is netcon-4409.log. The working boot log (CONFIG_NUMA=y) is
> netcon-4410.log. Enabling CONFIG_NUMA makes the following changes:
how about the numa=off on the kernel with CONFIG_NUMA=y?
YH
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:12:35 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:18:42 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> >> >> of recent regressions.
> >> >>
> >> >> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> >> >> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
> >> >> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
> >> >> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> >> >> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
> >> >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
> >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
> >> >> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
> >> >
> >>
> >> please send out whole boot log with numa on and numa off
> >> and boot with debug
> >>
> >> please apply attached debug patch too.
> >
> > OK, did all of that.
> > I should probably note that in both cases, the kernel is loaded/booted by using kexec.
> > Both boot logs are captured generated via netconsole.
> >
> > The failing boot log is netcon-4409.log. The working boot log (CONFIG_NUMA=y) is
> > netcon-4410.log. Enabling CONFIG_NUMA makes the following changes:
> >
> > 4c4
> > < # Sun Jun 15 15:00:56 2008
> > ---
> >> # Sun Jun 15 15:10:15 2008
> > 241c241,246
> > < # CONFIG_NUMA is not set
> > ---
> >> CONFIG_NUMA=y
> >> CONFIG_K8_NUMA=y
> >> CONFIG_X86_64_ACPI_NUMA=y
> >> CONFIG_NODES_SPAN_OTHER_NODES=y
> >> # CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is not set
> >> CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT=6
> > 249a255
> >> CONFIG_NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES=y
> > 260a267
> >> CONFIG_MIGRATION=y
> > 282a290
> >> CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_EARLY_PFN_TO_NID=y
> > 309a318
> >> CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA=y
> >
>
> the print out looks all right.
>
> any chance to use normal serial console to capture the boot log?
Not that I know of.
---
~Randy
'"Daemon' is an old piece of jargon from the UNIX operating system,
where it referred to a piece of low-level utility software, a
fundamental part of the operating system."
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:44:51PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Still waiting for the actual attached result of the test patch to debug
> > this further. Guess it will miss 2.6.26
>
> I replied via email - as you requested earlier in the thread - and
> attached the result to that email. Did you not get it?
Andrew may have asked you to use email not me.
The last I have is "Okay, output with the patch is attached. Thanks for your help"
only the output in question isn't attached to the bug ?
Alan
Hi,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> writes:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10741
> Subject : bug in `tty: BKL pushdown'?
> Submitter : Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-18 2:16 (28 days old)
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121107706506181&w=4
> Handled-By : Alan Cox <[email protected]>
The bug still exists, however, a bisect on another machine with the same
userland leads to different commit
(47f86834bbd4193139d61d659bebf9ab9d691e37 "redo locking of tty->pgrp"),
so it is not all that clear and stable.
I will investigate further but the entry should probably stay for now.
Hannes
> The bug still exists, however, a bisect on another machine with the same
> userland leads to different commit
> (47f86834bbd4193139d61d659bebf9ab9d691e37 "redo locking of tty->pgrp"),
> so it is not all that clear and stable.
Now that would actually make a lot more sense as a root cause.
On Monday 16 June 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> If the initlevel is '3', then the mtrr option will show up in
> /proc/mtrr otherwise not.
What is this init level and how would I set it? Do I need to?
> In init level '5', X server will add the mtrr
> (irrespective of boot option, if it's not already there) and will
> remove it when the X process completes its execution.
That was a useful pointer. I do see some differences when I compare
Xorg logs; see below.
> Can you also please try if "mtrr:1" makes any difference. This will
> setup the mapping as UC during boot. Apart from PAT WC mapping(which we
> shouldn't be using in your current setup), UC MTRR should override all
> the other PAT mappings and should be consistent across X and VT console
> mappings. As such, if the problem is because of improper aliasing, then
> with this UC MTRR, my understanding is that we shouldn't see any
> artifacts with the "mtrr:1".
> with this mtrr:1, we should now see a UC mtrr setting in /proc/mtrr.
mtrr:1 still gives the artifacts and no any difference to /proc/mtrr.
Here's /proc/cmdline + /proc/mtrr for three different boots:
root=/dev/mapper/main-root ro vga=791 quiet
reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x7f800000 (2040MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
reg02: base=0x7f700000 (2039MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
reg03: base=0x80000000 (2048MB), size= 256MB: write-combining, count=1
root=/dev/mapper/main-root ro vga=791 quiet video=vesafb:mtrr:1
reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x7f800000 (2040MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
reg02: base=0x7f700000 (2039MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
reg03: base=0x80000000 (2048MB), size= 256MB: write-combining, count=1
root=/dev/mapper/main-root ro vga=791 quiet video=vesafb:mtrr:3
reg00: base=0x00000000 ( 0MB), size=2048MB: write-back, count=1
reg01: base=0x7f800000 (2040MB), size= 8MB: uncachable, count=1
reg02: base=0x7f700000 (2039MB), size= 1MB: uncachable, count=1
reg03: base=0x80000000 (2048MB), size= 256MB: write-combining, count=1
I do see some differences in Xorg logs, so it does seem that the mtrr
options _are_ being recognized.
Attached my "normal" Xorg log (with 'vga=791') which I used as the base
for the diffs below. Other than shown, the logs are identical.
With mtrr:1 I get (added at the end of the log):
@@ -688,3 +688,11 @@
(II) evaluating device (Generic Keyboard)
(II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Generic Keyboard" (type: KEYBOARD)
(II) Configured Mouse: ps2EnableDataReporting: succeeded
+(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 0
+(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 1
+(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 2
+(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 3
+(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 4
+(II) intel(0): [drm] removed 1 reserved context for kernel
+(II) intel(0): [drm] unmapping 8192 bytes of SAREA 0x2efff000 at 0x7f2788ab9000
+(II) intel(0): [drm] Closed DRM master.
And with mtrr:3 (added in the middle):
@@ -577,6 +577,7 @@
(II) intel(0): [drm] Initialized kernel agp heap manager, 33554432
(II) intel(0): [dri] visual configs initialized
(II) intel(0): Page Flipping disabled
+(==) intel(0): Removed MMIO write-combining range (0x80000000,0x400000)
(==) intel(0): Write-combining range (0x80000000,0x10000000)
(II) intel(0): vgaHWGetIOBase: hwp->IOBase is 0x03d0, hwp->PIOOffset is 0x0000
(II) EXA(0): Offscreen pixmap area of 39321600 bytes
I've also checked with 'nopat'. That gives no differences in /proc/mtrr,
and also no differences in the Xorg log when compared with my normal boot
(vga=791).
Cheers,
FJP
On Monday 16 June 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
> I do see some differences in Xorg logs, so it does seem that the mtrr
> options _are_ being recognized.
> Attached my "normal" Xorg log (with 'vga=791') which I used as the base
> for the diffs below. Other than shown, the logs are identical.
>
> With mtrr:1 I get (added at the end of the log):
> @@ -688,3 +688,11 @@
> (II) evaluating device (Generic Keyboard)
> (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "Generic Keyboard" (type:
> KEYBOARD)
> (II) Configured Mouse: ps2EnableDataReporting: succeeded
> +(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 0
> +(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 1
> +(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 2
> +(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 3
> +(II) intel(0): xf86UnbindGARTMemory: unbind key 4
> +(II) intel(0): [drm] removed 1 reserved context for kernel
> +(II) intel(0): [drm] unmapping 8192 bytes of SAREA 0x2efff000 at
> 0x7f2788ab9000
> +(II) intel(0): [drm] Closed DRM master.
Oops. Just realized that this is completely bogus. I used the .old log for
this one while I used logs for still running Xorg sessions for the
others. So this was actually the only one that contains Xorg shutdown
messages at all.
> And with mtrr:3 (added in the middle):
> @@ -577,6 +577,7 @@
> (II) intel(0): [drm] Initialized kernel agp heap manager, 33554432
> (II) intel(0): [dri] visual configs initialized
> (II) intel(0): Page Flipping disabled
> +(==) intel(0): Removed MMIO write-combining range
> (0x80000000,0x400000)
> (==) intel(0): Write-combining range (0x80000000,0x10000000)
> (II) intel(0): vgaHWGetIOBase: hwp->IOBase is 0x03d0, hwp->PIOOffset
> is 0x0000
> (II) EXA(0): Offscreen pixmap area of 39321600 bytes
This is still valid though.
Sorry for the confusion.
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 22:12 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10905
> Subject : 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
> Submitter : Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-21 13:30 (25 days old)
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/21/131
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/12/121
> Handled-By : Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
> Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
> Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/28/42
This bug was recently fixed in 2.6.26 by commit
0269c5c6d9a9de22715ecda589730547435cd3e8
Mike.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:13 +0100
Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The bug still exists, however, a bisect on another machine with the same
> > userland leads to different commit
> > (47f86834bbd4193139d61d659bebf9ab9d691e37 "redo locking of tty->pgrp"),
> > so it is not all that clear and stable.
>
> Now that would actually make a lot more sense as a root cause.
Experiment time. In _proc_set_tty() in tty_io.c move the
tty->session = get_pid(task_session(tsk));
back inside the lock just before
tty->pgrp = get_pid(task_pgrp(tsk));
Alan
--
"Standards committees don't like hashing. It looks complicated and
insufficiently deterministic on an overhead projector."
- Vern Schryver
On Monday, 16 of June 2008, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 22:12 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10905
> > Subject : 2.6.26: x86/kernel/pci_dma.c: gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY ?
> > Submitter : Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-05-21 13:30 (25 days old)
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/21/131
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/12/121
> > Handled-By : Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
> > Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
> > Miquel van Smoorenburg <[email protected]>
> > Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/28/42
>
> This bug was recently fixed in 2.6.26 by commit
> 0269c5c6d9a9de22715ecda589730547435cd3e8
Thanks, closed.
Rafael
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:15:17 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:18:42 -0700 Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> >> >> of recent regressions.
> >> >>
> >> >> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> >> >> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10872
> >> >> Subject : x86_64 boot hang when CONFIG_NUMA=n
> >> >> Submitter : Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
> >> >> Date : 2008-06-05 21:50 (10 days old)
> >> >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121270308607116&w=4
> >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/11/355
> >> >> Handled-By : Yinghai Lu <[email protected]>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, still happens for me on 2.6.26-rc6-git2.
> >> >
> >>
> >> please send out whole boot log with numa on and numa off
> >> and boot with debug
> >>
> >> please apply attached debug patch too.
> >
> > OK, did all of that.
> > I should probably note that in both cases, the kernel is loaded/booted by using kexec.
> > Both boot logs are captured generated via netconsole.
> >
> > The failing boot log is netcon-4409.log. The working boot log (CONFIG_NUMA=y) is
> > netcon-4410.log. Enabling CONFIG_NUMA makes the following changes:
>
> how about the numa=off on the kernel with CONFIG_NUMA=y?
Hi,
That hangs the same way as the previous.
BTW, that kernel boot option needs to be documented in
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt ...
---
~Randy
'"Daemon' is an old piece of jargon from the UNIX operating system,
where it referred to a piece of low-level utility software, a
fundamental part of the operating system."
Hi,
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:13 +0100
> Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > The bug still exists, however, a bisect on another machine with the same
>> > userland leads to different commit
>> > (47f86834bbd4193139d61d659bebf9ab9d691e37 "redo locking of tty->pgrp"),
>> > so it is not all that clear and stable.
>>
>> Now that would actually make a lot more sense as a root cause.
>
> Experiment time. In _proc_set_tty() in tty_io.c move the
>
> tty->session = get_pid(task_session(tsk));
>
> back inside the lock just before
>
> tty->pgrp = get_pid(task_pgrp(tsk));
Like this:?
spin_lock()
put_pid()
put_pid()
tty->session =
tty->pgrp =
spin_unlock()
That does not fix it.
Hannes
> tty->session =
> tty->pgrp =
> spin_unlock()
>
> That does not fix it.
Thanks. That rules out the one case I could see that might have pointed
to a potential bug.
Alan
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:31:52AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > > From what you have written it looks the dependency should actually be:
> > >
> > > depends on !M386 && !M486 && !M586 && !M586TSC && !M586MMX
> > >
> > > as none of the pre-Pentium-Pro processors had the PAE feature (I am not
> > > sure about non-Intel implementations, so the case of M586 would have to be
> > > investigated).
> >
> > Yes, it's the non-intel ones that would keep me from saying !M586.
> >
> > For intel, PAE was a PPro feature (at least officially, as you point out),
> > but I do not know about various other manufacturers. From personal
> > experience, the line between Pentium and PPro features doesn't tend to be
> > totally black-and-white (although I suspect that when it comes to PAE it
> > _may_ be).
>
> Well, PAE is quite a significant block to implement and Intel kept it
> hidden until they published the long awaited PentiumPro manual sometime in
> 1996. I am fairly sure the K5 did not implement it (it may have had PSE
> and VME, especially in the later revisions) and Google does not show up
> any Cyrix processors with PAE. I may have a K5 manual somewhere, so I can
> see if I can verify it.
Even the K6 didn't have PAE. The Athlon was AMD's first CPU that had it.
> Please also note these processors tried to compete with Intel on the
> desktop market where 4GB of RAM was completely unreasonable in late 90s.
> I think unless someone can recall a counter-example, it can be safely
> assumed these chips did not have the PAE. We could try to extend the
> dependency and see if anybody screams.
I agree. To the best of my knowledge (and looking through output of
x86info from lots of old CPUs), Intel had the only CPUs with PAE in
that era.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
Hi,
Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
>> tty->session =
>> tty->pgrp =
>> spin_unlock()
>>
>> That does not fix it.
>
> Thanks. That rules out the one case I could see that might have pointed
> to a potential bug.
The second bisection was the wrong one, sorry for the confusion.
I tried again (manually) and the result is (still) this:
Everything fine with HEAD at e5238442 "serial_core: Prepare for BKL push
down".
Weird behaviour as described with HEAD at 04f378b19 "tty: BKL pushdown".
Hannes
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:12:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10827
> Subject : 2.6.26rc4 GFS2 oops.
> Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
> Date : 2008-05-27 15:44 (19 days old)
> References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/297
Dave, what is the status of this bug?
It's currently listed as a 2.6.26-rc regression.
Is it actually confirmed that 2.6.25 is fine?
According to the thread of the bug report there should now be a bug
report in the Red Hat Bugzilla for it. Bug number?
Thanks
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sunday 15 June 2008, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Saturday 14 June 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel
> > > and VESA framebuffer
> > > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
> >
> > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
>
> Frans, With or without pat, in the recent kernels (like 2.6.26-rc4/rc5
> etc), ioremap() uses UC- and PCI mmap of /sys/devices/pci.../resource
> (used by X) uses UC-
>
> And fb_mmap() also uses UC-.
>
> It's interesting that you don't see this artifact with "nopat".
> Essentially with or with out pat enabled, we use the same memory
> attributes. So depending on the MTRR setup (set by X server), effective
> memory attribute across different mappings should be same (which is UC-
> or WC with mtrr).
Any progress on this issue? It's still there with -rc7, but I doubt that
comes as a surprise.
Has anyone tried to reproduce this? I would think that should be trivial.
Just as a summary:
- Intel 82945G/GZ graphics [8086:2772] (ICH7 based system)
- FB_VESA=y, FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y
- boot with vga=791
- Log in to X and KDE; I do need to really log in there are no artifacts
if I exit X from the kdm login dialog
- artifacts show on logout
I doubt it's KDE related or even related to my specific graphics card.
It may well be related to what is or has been displayed on the display
before logging out, so running some apps may make sense. Seems like I do
see remnants of for example aptitude (Debian apt frontend) after I've run
it in an X term (KDE's konsole).
Cheers,
FJP
On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 12:09 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:12:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10827
> > Subject : 2.6.26rc4 GFS2 oops.
> > Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
> > Date : 2008-05-27 15:44 (19 days old)
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/297
>
> Dave, what is the status of this bug?
>
> It's currently listed as a 2.6.26-rc regression.
>
> Is it actually confirmed that 2.6.25 is fine?
>
> According to the thread of the bug report there should now be a bug
> report in the Red Hat Bugzilla for it. Bug number?
>
> Thanks
> Adrian
Hi,
This appears to be a known bug. There's a Fedora bugzilla record for
it here, which contains a patch to fix the problem:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448866
The bug does not appear to be in 2.6.25; 2.6.25 is fine afaict.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat GFS
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:40:39AM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 12:09 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:12:03PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > > of recent regressions.
> > >
> > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10827
> > > Subject : 2.6.26rc4 GFS2 oops.
> > > Submitter : Dave Jones <[email protected]>
> > > Date : 2008-05-27 15:44 (19 days old)
> > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/27/297
> >
> > Dave, what is the status of this bug?
> >
> > It's currently listed as a 2.6.26-rc regression.
> >
> > Is it actually confirmed that 2.6.25 is fine?
> >
> > According to the thread of the bug report there should now be a bug
> > report in the Red Hat Bugzilla for it. Bug number?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Adrian
>
> Hi,
>
> This appears to be a known bug. There's a Fedora bugzilla record for
> it here, which contains a patch to fix the problem:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448866
Thanks for the pointer.
> The bug does not appear to be in 2.6.25; 2.6.25 is fine afaict.
Yup, the patch in your Bugzilla is for code that is new in 2.6.26.
Can you push your patch for inclusion into 2.6.26 so that 2.6.26 won't
get released with this regression?
> Regards,
>
> Bob Peterson
> Red Hat GFS
Thanks
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
> Yup, the patch in your Bugzilla is for code that is new in 2.6.26.
>
> Can you push your patch for inclusion into 2.6.26 so that 2.6.26 won't
> get released with this regression?
>
> Thanks
> Adrian
Hi Adrian,
Unfortunately, I cannot. All access to the gfs2 "-nmw" git tree is
controlled by Steve Whitehouse, and he is on vacation/holiday until
tomorrow.
I've submitted the patch to cluster-devel, so hopefully he'll push it
as soon as he returns tomorrow.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat GFS
On Monday, 23 of June 2008, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > Yup, the patch in your Bugzilla is for code that is new in 2.6.26.
> >
> > Can you push your patch for inclusion into 2.6.26 so that 2.6.26 won't
> > get released with this regression?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Adrian
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot. All access to the gfs2 "-nmw" git tree is
> controlled by Steve Whitehouse, and he is on vacation/holiday until
> tomorrow.
>
> I've submitted the patch to cluster-devel, so hopefully he'll push it
> as soon as he returns tomorrow.
You can post the patch in this thread, with CC to Andrew Morton.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:02:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 23 of June 2008, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > > Yup, the patch in your Bugzilla is for code that is new in 2.6.26.
> > >
> > > Can you push your patch for inclusion into 2.6.26 so that 2.6.26 won't
> > > get released with this regression?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Adrian
> >
> > Hi Adrian,
> >
> > Unfortunately, I cannot. All access to the gfs2 "-nmw" git tree is
> > controlled by Steve Whitehouse, and he is on vacation/holiday until
> > tomorrow.
> >
> > I've submitted the patch to cluster-devel, so hopefully he'll push it
> > as soon as he returns tomorrow.
>
> You can post the patch in this thread, with CC to Andrew Morton.
If Steve is on vacation only until tomorrow there's not a need to bypass
him - it's not that extremely urgent.
> Thanks,
> Rafael
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:38:59AM -0700, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 15 June 2008, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > Frans Pop wrote:
> > > On Saturday 14 June 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10843
> > > > Subject : Display artifacts on XOrg logout with PAT kernel
> > > > and VESA framebuffer
> > > > Submitter : Frans Pop <[email protected]>
> > > > Date : 2008-05-31 14:04 (15 days old)
> > > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/7/206
> > >
> > > Yes. See also: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/13/159
> >
> > Frans, With or without pat, in the recent kernels (like 2.6.26-rc4/rc5
> > etc), ioremap() uses UC- and PCI mmap of /sys/devices/pci.../resource
> > (used by X) uses UC-
> >
> > And fb_mmap() also uses UC-.
> >
> > It's interesting that you don't see this artifact with "nopat".
> > Essentially with or with out pat enabled, we use the same memory
> > attributes. So depending on the MTRR setup (set by X server), effective
> > memory attribute across different mappings should be same (which is UC-
> > or WC with mtrr).
>
> Any progress on this issue? It's still there with -rc7, but I doubt that
> comes as a surprise.
>
> Has anyone tried to reproduce this? I would think that should be trivial.
>
> Just as a summary:
> - Intel 82945G/GZ graphics [8086:2772] (ICH7 based system)
> - FB_VESA=y, FRAMEBUFFER_CONSOLE=y
> - boot with vga=791
> - Log in to X and KDE; I do need to really log in there are no artifacts
> if I exit X from the kdm login dialog
> - artifacts show on logout
>
> I doubt it's KDE related or even related to my specific graphics card.
>
> It may well be related to what is or has been displayed on the display
> before logging out, so running some apps may make sense. Seems like I do
> see remnants of for example aptitude (Debian apt frontend) after I've run
> it in an X term (KDE's konsole).
FJP, We will try to reproduce this and getback. Your earlier responses did not
give many clues.
thanks,
suresh