Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758795Ab3GZNPN (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:15:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]:50255 "EHLO mail-ob0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757038Ab3GZNPK (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:15:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:15:09 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: XtGxd7lIiwR_PX2_HnjBd6BwYTM Message-ID: Subject: Re: 3.11-rc2: panic in __rdmsr_on_cpu From: Ilia Mirkin To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Srinivas Pandruvada , Zhang Rui Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2088 Lines: 59 On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just built a 3.11-rc2 kernel (+ a few patches, but nothing >> arch-related), and I saw the following: http://i.imgur.com/dCTqOyR.jpg >> >> The rough transcription is >> >> Call Trace: >> >> generic_smp_call_fucntion_single_interrupt >> smp_call_function_single_interrupt >> call_function_single_interrupt >> >> ? default_idle >> ? default_idle >> arch_cpu_idle >> cpu_startup_entry >> rest_init >> start_kernel >> ? repair_env_string >> x86_64_start_reservations >> x86_64_start_kernel >> Code: ... cc 81 8b 0f <0f> 32 48 c1 e2 20 89 c0 ... >> RIP: __rdmsr_on_cpu+0x2e/0x44 >> Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt >> >> A 3.10-rc7 kernel booted just fine. Is this likely a real issue? Or >> perhaps a mis-build of some sort? > > FWIW this is repeatable. I did a clean build (make clean && make) and > I still see the same thing. I have a Core i7-920 cpu, not sure what > other information would be relevant. I'd love to avoid a bisect, so > some likely candidates would be most welcome. Aha, figured it out. I had enabled "X86 package temperature thermal driver" = Y, which caused my Core i7-920 to produce the above trace on boot. Glancing over the code, should this: if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_DTHERM) && !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PTS)) return -ENODEV; perhaps be if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_DTHERM) || !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PTS)) return -ENODEV; i.e. are both of those things required, or just one of them? My cpu has DTHERM but not PTS, according to /proc/cpuinfo. -ilia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/