Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:21:45 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Dieter Ries <clip2@gmx.de>
Cc: Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@gmail.com>, travis@sgi.com,
       rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc1 does not boot
Message-ID: <20090112122145.GA28636@elte.hu>
References: <496A085E.8020604@gmx.de> <20090111151924.GA5722@elte.hu> <496A107A.2090301@gmx.de> <20090111153548.GB7401@elte.hu> <496A3F62.8090902@gmx.de> <8db1092f0901120322x5e453fd0x61a78cc1a55982aa@mail.gmail.com> <20090112112608.GB19388@elte.hu> <496B3331.1070709@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <496B3331.1070709@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 874
Lines: 24


* Dieter Ries <clip2@gmx.de> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar schrieb:
> > Dieter did not have lockdep enabled so we dont have a nice stack
> > trace proof for this, but using work_on_cpu() in such a lowlevel
> > place certainly looks wrong, so we revert the patch.
> 
> I can send a stack trace in the evening, when I have access to my other 
> machine for getting the netconsole output. Would that help?

sure, that would confirm the theory and would avoid this bug being 
reintroduced later.

So you did get stacktraces? You might want to boot with 
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, that could also catch and report the lockup 
scenario.

	Ingo
--
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/