[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081125000902.GA24251@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:09:02 -0800
From: malahal@...ibm.com
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Mike Anderson <andmike@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: next-20081119: general protection fault:
get_next_timer_interrupt()
Thomas Gleixner [tglx@...utronix.de] wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > > Yeah, block could it be as well. Jens, Mike ?
> >
> > I added a comment to bug 12020 on Thursday about a few other systems that
> > where seeing the signature shown in bug 12020. It appeared from debug that
> > there where a few paths that where adding timers for requests that where
> > not expected.
> >
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12020
> >
> > It would be good to know if the debug patch below effects your problem as while.
> >
> > If it does we need to investigated a solution to resolve not adding a
> > timer for these requests.
The block timer code calls del_timer(), should it call del_timer_sync()?
It is possible although unlikely that you are hitting del_timer_sync vs
del_timer problem in the block timeout code. Can only be seen on SMP
systems though!
--Malahal.
--
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