Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:44:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:44:26 -0500 Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:29251 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:44:21 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.2.20030127191904.00cc2508@pop.gmx.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:50:24 +0100 To: Luuk van der Duim , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm6 In-Reply-To: <1043670419.1691.30.camel@cc75757-a.groni1.gr.home.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 01:27 PM 1/27/2003 +0100, Luuk van der Duim wrote: >Hello mm-users, > > > . The mysterious "machine hangs late in boot" problem has been narrowed > down thanks to some great work by Andres Salomon. The machine is stuck > waiting on I/O completion when performing the initial lookup for > /sbin/devfs_helper: > > >I don't believe it to be an exclusively small-devfs helper problem. Well, my test box agrees (I have never ever used devfs, but could lock hard in minutes) mm6 works fine here, so I _think_ it's probably resolved... >It is an interaction at best. Sure I had problems using devfs-small, but >mm2 worked and mm3 was the first that halted during boot. Both have >devfs-small, and both need its helper. Or I am missing a subtlety here? I don't think you're missing anything, but I also don't know wtf the interaction is. I put a couple of man-days into looking for it, and came up with exactly nada of interest. >Secondly, Andrew sent me a rollup of patches against 2.5.59 he thought >were suspicious, without smalldevfs and it also halted, but at another >place in boot, at adding swap. Mine locked hard hard hard. Booted fine, but died reliably under heavy load. (something seems funky with nmi_watchdog... hard lock = no_more_nmi_ticks . Anybody out there know enough about local APIC to explain why idle=poll gives nice 1 second nmi, but everything else depends upon cpu load?... and why when hardlock happens, it _stops_) >Can someone besides me confirm this behavior or am I the loon who just >won't understand? My box agrees that you're not a loon fwTw :) -Mike - 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/