Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934527AbaLKVtT (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:49:19 -0500 Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50]:63454 "EHLO mail-qg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933134AbaLKVtS (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:49:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20141211145408.GB16800@redhat.com> References: <20141201230339.GA20487@ret.masoncoding.com> <1417529606.3924.26.camel@maggy.simpson.net> <1417540493.21136.3@mail.thefacebook.com> <20141203184111.GA32005@redhat.com> <20141205171501.GA1320@redhat.com> <1417806247.4845.1@mail.thefacebook.com> <20141211145408.GB16800@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:49:17 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Nn6F0nW8hQAEfHSqqtzmMHTUs2A Message-ID: Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4 From: Linus Torvalds To: Dave Jones , Linus Torvalds , Chris Mason , Mike Galbraith , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , =?UTF-8?Q?D=C3=A2niel_Fraga?= , Sasha Levin , "Paul E. McKenney" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > So either one of those 'good's actually wasn't, or I'm just cursed. Even if there was a good that wasn't, that last "bad" (6f929b4e5a02) is already sufficient just on its own to say that likely v3.16 already had the problem. Just do gitk v3.16..6f929b4e5a02 and cry. (or "git diff --stat -M v3.16...6f929b4e5a02" to see what that commit brought in from the common ancestor). So I'd call that bisect a failure, and your "v3.16 is fine" is actually suspect after all. Which *might* mean that it's some hardware issue after all. Or there are multiple different problems, and while v3.16 was fine, the problem was introduced earlier (in the common ancestor of that staging tree), then fixed for 3.16, and then re-introduced later again. Anyway, you might as well stop bisecting. Regardless of where it lands in the remaining pile, it's not going to give us any useful information, methinks. I'm stumped. Maybe it's worth it to concentrate on just testing current kernels, and instead try to limit the triggering some other way. In particular, you had a trinity run that was *only* testing lsetxattr(). Is that really *all* that was going on? Obviously trinity will be using timers, fork, and other things? Can you recreate that lsetxattr thing, and just try to get as many problem reports as possible from one particular kernel (say, 3.18, since that should be a reasonable modern base with hopefully not a lot of other random issues)? Together with perhaps config checks. You've done some those already. Did it reproduce without preemption, for example? Does anybody have any smart ideas? Linus -- 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/