Date:	Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:12:11 -0400
From:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
To:	Justin Mattock <justinmattock@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: system gets stuck in a lock during boot

On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:49:44PM -0700, Justin Mattock wrote:
> >>
> >> * Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@...il.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> * Justin Mattock<justinmattock@...il.com>   wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> O.K. I feel better, deleted
> >>>>> my system, and threw in a minimal built system
> >>>>> with only the bare essentials to boot.
> >>>>> (just to make sure things are correct).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> unfortunately after building rc6 I'm still hitting
> >>>>> this. really am not sure why this is happening.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you please double-check the bisection result by doing this:
> >>>>
> >>>>   git revert af6af30c0f
> >>>>
> >>>> on the latest kernel and seeing whether that fixes the lockup?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bisections are very efficient and hence very sensitive as well to
> >>>> minimal errors. Just one small mistake near the end of a bisection
> >>>> can blame the wrong commit.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the best way to double-check such 100%-triggerable crashes is to
> >>>> do the revert. I tried the revert and it can be done fine here.
> >>>>
> >>>> [ _If_ that does not fix the bug then to save time you can
> >>>>     'backtrack' the bisection, instead of re-doing it completely.
> >>>>     I.e. you have your bisection log, re-check the final steps going
> >>>>     backwards. Once you find a discrepancy (i.e. a 'bad' point that
> >>>>     is 'good' or the other way around), redo the bisection log
> >>>>     commands up to that point and continue it up to the end. ]
> >>>>
> >>>>        Ingo
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> shoot, I did not see your post here. when looking at my bisect
> >>> log, I guess after a git bisect reset it clears?
> >>>
> >>> Anyways after git bisect had finished I looked manually at the
> >>> commits that it had generated the one which I had sent in a post
> >>> previously, and this one:
> >>>
> >>>  9424edc2da097c8589fcc24a72552d33e54be161
> >>>
> >>
> >> (this commit has no effect on your kernel image, at all.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > yep. but it was worth a try.
> >>>
> >>> at the time looking at the commit, I see this to be more of the
> >>> cause because of it being related to elf as so forth, but as soon
> >>> as I reverted this on rc6 made no difference.(the previous commit
> >>> fixes this for me, on a regular tar.ball as well as in git.
> >>>
> >>> I think at this point since this system is a fresh from scratch
> >>> build, I think something might be wrong that I'm doing (all the
> >>> CFLAGS, and such are in a previous post).
> >>>
> >>> At the moment I don't have a problem applying a patch to the
> >>> kernel for this. especially since I'm the only one that seems to
> >>> be hitting this, then if more and more reports of this happen then
> >>> we can go from there.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What would be nice is to verify your bisection end result, i.e. do
> >> what i suggested:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > yeah I've done this on both kernels three to be exact, and all boot after
> > reverting
> > Fix perf-tracepoint OOPS.
> >
> > As for my system, I'm still convinced that I might be doing something wrong
> > over here.
> >
> >>>> Could you please double-check the bisection result by doing this:
> >>>>
> >>>>   git revert af6af30c0f
> >>>>
> >>>> on the latest kernel and seeing whether that fixes the lockup?
> >>>>
> >>
> >> if this doesnt fix it on latest -git then this commit is not the
> >> cause of the lockup.
> >>
> >>        Ingo
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This commit(Fix perf-tracepoint OOPS.)does fix my stuckage, but I'm left, as
> > well as others asking
> > the question of why.
> > In any case I still think I'm setting something wrong with either gcc, or
> > something
> > that might be causing this from userland.
> >
> > Justin P. Mattock
> >
> 
> O.k. here something awkward about this issue I was
> experiencing. at the moment I have two imac's
> here the descriptions:
> 
> imac A) the one with the problem
> 
> OS: built from the clfs book
> x86_64 multilib with only lib64
> 
> built everything with these flags:
> CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2
> -mfpmath=both -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> -fstack-protection"
> CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
> while compiling everything with
> gcc version: 4.5.0 20090730
> 
> 
> imac B) the one that works
> 
> OS: clfs(just built a few days ago)
> x86_64 pure64 bit build
> (lib with a symlink to lib64)
> CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2
>  -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
> CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
> gcc version: 4.4.1 (GCC for Cross-LFS 4.4.1.20090722)
> 
> The only things I can think of is either I hit something
> because of gcc, something goes wrong with the libraries,
> or there something happening with either the option
> of mfpmath=both or stackprotection.
> 
> At this point since the kernel seems to be running fine,
> is to just trash the system that has this issue and just leave
> it at, I was hitting some weird anomaly.
> 

hi Justin,

I've been playing around with gcc '4.5' as well and hit a panic that
looks very similar to what you've seen with stock 2.6.31 - I haven't
seen it anywhere else. Anyways, it seems to be some sort of alignment
issue with the 'struct ftrace_event_call'. I'm not sure yet if this is a
compiler or kernel issue. But the following kernel patch fixes the issue
for me. It would be interesting to verify if the patch also resolves the
issue for you.

thanks,

-Jason


diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
index 6ad76bf..0029af4 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
@@ -164,6 +164,7 @@
 	LIKELY_PROFILE()		       				\
 	BRANCH_PROFILE()						\
 	TRACE_PRINTKS()							\
+	. = ALIGN(32);							\
 	FTRACE_EVENTS()							\
 	TRACE_SYSCALLS()
 
diff --git a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
index a81170d..43f9f1e 100644
--- a/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
+++ b/include/linux/ftrace_event.h
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ struct ftrace_event_call {
 	atomic_t		profile_count;
 	int			(*profile_enable)(struct ftrace_event_call *);
 	void			(*profile_disable)(struct ftrace_event_call *);
-};
+} __attribute__((aligned(32)));
 
 #define MAX_FILTER_PRED		32
 #define MAX_FILTER_STR_VAL	128
diff --git a/include/trace/ftrace.h b/include/trace/ftrace.h
index f64fbaa..4697fb6 100644
--- a/include/trace/ftrace.h
+++ b/include/trace/ftrace.h
@@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static int ftrace_raw_init_event_##call(void)				\
 }									\
 									\
 static struct ftrace_event_call __used					\
-__attribute__((__aligned__(4)))						\
+__attribute__((__aligned__(32)))					\
 __attribute__((section("_ftrace_events"))) event_##call = {		\
 	.name			= #call,				\
 	.system			= __stringify(TRACE_SYSTEM),		\
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists