Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757569AbWKXCFp (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:05:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757568AbWKXCFp (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:05:45 -0500 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:2726 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757566AbWKXCFo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:05:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:05:08 +1100 From: David Chinner To: Jesper Juhl Cc: David Chinner , Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Oeser , David Miller , chatz@melbourne.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc6 : Spontaneous reboots, stack overflows - seems to implicate xfs, scsi, networking, SMP Message-ID: <20061124020508.GI11034@melbourne.sgi.com> References: <9a8748490611211551v2ebe88fel2bcf25af004c338a@mail.gmail.com> <20061122.201013.112290046.davem@davemloft.net> <20061123070837.GV11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <200611231416.03387.netdev@axxeo.de> <1164307020.3147.3.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20061124005528.GF11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <9a8748490611231708w3abf295bw3c007acf5cdcf336@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9a8748490611231708w3abf295bw3c007acf5cdcf336@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1671 Lines: 46 On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:08:53AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On 24/11/06, David Chinner wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:37:00PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 14:16 +0100, Ingo Oeser wrote: > >> > Hi there, > >> > > >> > David Chinner schrieb: > >> > > If the softirqs were run on a different stack, then a lot of these > >> > >> softirqs DO run on their own stack! > > > >So they run on a separate stack for 4k stacks on x86? > > Yes, with 4K stacks there's sepperate IRQ stack. Ok, thanks. > >They don't run on a separate stack for 8k stacks on x86 - > >Jesper's traces show that - so this may indicate an issue > >with the methodology used to generate the stack overflow > >traces inteh first place. i.e. if 4k stacks use a separate > >stack, then most of the reported overflows are spurious > >and would not normally occur on 4k stack systems.. > > > > Well, some of the traces show that we were down to ~3K stack free with > 8K stacks, so ~5K used. Even with 4K stacks and sepperate stack for > IRQs we will still be uncomfortably close to the edge in those cases. Sure - i didn't say there wasn't a problem - more just indicating that most of the traces would not have happened on a 4k stack box so it's harder to tell which of the traces you posted would actually lead to an overflow. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - 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/