Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1762422AbXIXRIl@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762422AbXIXRIl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:08:41 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758711AbXIXRId
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:08:33 -0400
Received: from E23SMTP05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.174]:43409 "EHLO
	e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754934AbXIXRIc (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:08:32 -0400
Message-ID: <46F7EEF3.7080902@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:38:03 +0530
From: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc7-mm1
References: <20070924021716.9bfe7dfb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46F7B7FD.1000905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070924094448.d08cf3a6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070924185737.717b2650@twins>
In-Reply-To: <20070924185737.717b2650@twins>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3298
Lines: 80

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:44:48 -0700 Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:43:33 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Kernel BUG over x86_64 (AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 844).
>>>
>>> Similar kernel Bug was reported for 2.6.23-rc2-mm1
>>> at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/10/20 and the 
>>> mm-dirty-balancing-for-tasks.patch was dropped from 2.6.23-rc2-mm2.
>>> And the same patch is in this -mm version, suspect whether is it the
>>> same patch triggering this Bug.
>>>
>>> BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [events/0:15]
>>> CPU 0:
>>> Modules linked in:
>>> Pid: 15, comm: events/0 Tainted: G      D 2.6.23-rc7-mm1-autokern1 #1
>>> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8021be46>]  [<ffffffff8021be46>] __smp_call_function_mask+0x9a/0xc4
>>> RSP: 0000:ffff8100017add80  EFLAGS: 00000297
>>> RAX: 00000000000000fc RBX: ffff8100017adde0 RCX: 0000000000000001
>>> RDX: 00000000000008fc RSI: 00000000000000fc RDI: 000000000000000e
>>> RBP: ffffc20002d11000 R08: ffff8100017ac000 R09: ffffffff80675e38
>>> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 000000000000000f
>>> R13: ffffffff8021bcfe R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000001
>>> FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff8065a000(0000) knlGS:00000000556aa2a0
>>> CS:  0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b
>>> CR2: ffffc20002d11008 CR3: 0000000000201000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
>>> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>>
>>> Call Trace:
>>> Inexact backtrace:
>>>  [<ffffffff802157a4>] mcheck_check_cpu+0x0/0x31
>>>  [<ffffffff802157a4>] mcheck_check_cpu+0x0/0x31
>>>  [<ffffffff8021becf>] smp_call_function_mask+0x5f/0x72
>>>  [<ffffffff802157a4>] mcheck_check_cpu+0x0/0x31
>>>  [<ffffffff8021bf82>] smp_call_function+0x19/0x1b
>>>  [<ffffffff8023a773>] on_each_cpu+0x16/0x2b
>>>  [<ffffffff802158a2>] mcheck_timer+0x0/0x7c
>>>  [<ffffffff802158c0>] mcheck_timer+0x1e/0x7c
>>>  [<ffffffff802444b9>] run_workqueue+0x88/0x109
>>>  [<ffffffff8024453a>] worker_thread+0x0/0xf4
>>>  [<ffffffff80244623>] worker_thread+0xe9/0xf4
>>>  [<ffffffff8024841d>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x37
>>>  [<ffffffff8024841d>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x37
>>>  [<ffffffff80247e5c>] kthread+0x44/0x6d
>>>  [<ffffffff8020c5a8>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
>>>  [<ffffffff80247e18>] kthread+0x0/0x6d
>>>  [<ffffffff8020c59e>] child_rip+0x0/0x12
>> hm, I thought we'd fixed the problems in that patchset.  Peter, were
>> you aware of this one?
> 
> Nope, and the stacktrace is utterly puzzling.
> 
> /me goes read the lkml.org link
> 
> Kamalesh Babulal: do you still get:
>   BUG: spinlock bad magic on
> 
> msgs?
> 
> Because those I could reproduce using fsx, and I fixed all that.
Hi Peter,

I do not get BUG: spinlock bad magic messages any more, but the softlock message is
thrown more than 30 time, while running the ltp runall.

-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Kamalesh Babulal,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM, ISTL.
-
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/