[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080206163111.54088622.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:31:11 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
tasks
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:04:25 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > > Does that kernel have:
> > >
> > > commit ed50d6cbc394cd0966469d3e249353c9dd1d38b9
> > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > > Date: Sat Feb 2 00:23:08 2008 +0100
> > >
> > > debug: softlockup looping fix
> >
> > yup. It was fetched less than 24 hours ago.
>
> does the patch below improve the situation?
>
Nope.
But I tested it on mainline, and mainline exhibits the never-powers-off
symptom, whereas ed50d6cbc394cd0966469d3e249353c9dd1d38b9 demonstrates the
powers-off-after-20-seconds symptom.
So we _may_ be dealing with two bugs here, and your patch might have fixed
the first, but that success is obscured by the second. I guess I need to
prepare a tree which has ed50d6cbc394cd0966469d3e249353c9dd1d38b9 at its
tip. (Wonders how to do that).
btw, mainline (plus this patch, not that it changed anything) prints
<stopping disk stuff>
Disabling non-boot CPUs
CPU 1 is now offline
and that's it. This machine has eight cpus. Might be a hint?
--
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