Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754542AbYKYAJR (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:09:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753991AbYKYAJG (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:09:06 -0500 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:55816 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752133AbYKYAJF (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:09:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:09:02 -0800 From: malahal@us.ibm.com To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Mike Anderson , James Bottomley , Alexander Beregalov , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: next-20081119: general protection fault: get_next_timer_interrupt() Message-ID: <20081125000902.GA24251@us.ibm.com> Mail-Followup-To: Thomas Gleixner , Mike Anderson , James Bottomley , Alexander Beregalov , LKML , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Jens Axboe References: <1227554117.25499.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081124213517.GA25898@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.32 on an i486 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1190 Lines: 28 Thomas Gleixner [tglx@linutronix.de] wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Mike Anderson wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Yeah, block could it be as well. Jens, Mike ? > > > > I added a comment to bug 12020 on Thursday about a few other systems that > > where seeing the signature shown in bug 12020. It appeared from debug that > > there where a few paths that where adding timers for requests that where > > not expected. > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12020 > > > > It would be good to know if the debug patch below effects your problem as while. > > > > If it does we need to investigated a solution to resolve not adding a > > timer for these requests. The block timer code calls del_timer(), should it call del_timer_sync()? It is possible although unlikely that you are hitting del_timer_sync vs del_timer problem in the block timeout code. Can only be seen on SMP systems though! --Malahal. -- 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/