[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 23:56:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@...ernode.on.net>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: lock-up with module: Optimize __module_address() using a latched
RB-tree
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:45:45AM +0930, Arthur Marsh wrote:
> I'm not aware of any modules being loaded with --force .
>
> I've applied the patch, thanks!
>
> The resultant kernel locked up as follows:
>
> http://www.users.on.net/~arthur.marsh/20150708469.jpg
This has "Not tainted" which would indeed rule out forced loading. So
much for that idea :/
> http://www.users.on.net/~arthur.marsh/20150708470.jpg
And that one has a bunch of NMI prints, curious those. But given Mathieu
made them return NULL, that completely rules out the most interesting
races.
You could have a look at Documentation/networking/netconsole.txt and see
if you can get that working between your machines; if you can get that
to work you can maybe stop looking for that null-modem bit.
--
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