[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806011847.29744.j.mell@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 18:47:29 +0200
From: Jürgen Mell <j.mell@...nline.de>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT causes corruption of application's FPU stack
On Sonntag, 1. Juni 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> j.mell@...nline.de writes:
> > or it is restored more than
> > once. Please keep in mind, that I am always running two Einstein
> > processes simultaneously on my two cores!
> > I am willing to do further testing of this problem if someone can give
> > me a hint how to continue.
>
> My bet would have been actually on
> aa283f49276e7d840a40fb01eee6de97eaa7e012 because it does some nasty
> things (enable interrupts in the middle of __switch_to).
>
> I looked through the old patchkit and couldn't find any specific
> PREEMPT problems. All code it changes should run with preempt_off
>
> You could verify with sticking WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()) into
> all the places acc207616a91a413a50fdd8847a747c4a7324167
> changes (__unlazy_fpu, math_state_restore) and see if that triggers
> anywhere.
No, that did not trigger. I put the WARN_ON_ONCE into process.c, traps.c
and also into the __unlazy_fpu macro in i387.h but I got no messages
anywhere (dmesg, /var/log/messages, /var/log/warn) when the trap #8
occurred.
Meanwhile I am also running the tests on another machine to make sure it is
not a hardware-related problem.
Any new ideas are welcome!
Meanwhile I will go back to 2.6.20 and revert
aa283f49276e7d840a40fb01eee6de97eaa7e012. Maybe I got on a wrong track...
Bye,
Jürgen
--
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