[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <496FB09A.8020808@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:54:34 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: roel kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, travis@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
steiner@....com, hugh@...itas.com
Subject: Re: [patch] add optimized generic percpu accessors
Hello, Ingo.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
>> FYI, -tip testing found the following bug with your percpu stuff:
>>
>> There's an early exception during bootup, on 64-bit x86:
>>
>> PANIC: early exception 0e rip 10:ffffffff80276855: error ? cr2 6688
>>
>> - gcc version 4.3.2 20081007 (Red Hat 4.3.2-6) (GCC)
>> - binutils-2.18.50.0.6-2.x86_64
>>
>> config attached. You can find the disassembly of lock_release_holdtime()
>> below - that's where it crashed:
>
> Gut feeling: we must have gotten a window where the PDA is not right. Note
> how it crashes in lock_release_holdtime() - that is CONFIG_LOCK_STAT
> instrumentation - very lowlevel and pervasive. Function tracing is also
> enabled although it should be inactive at the early stages.
>
> So i'd take a good look at the PDA setup portion of the boot code, and see
> whether some spinlock acquire/release can slip in while the
> PDA/percpu-area is not reliable.
Heh... I tought I got this covered pretty good. I'll get onto
debugging in a few hours. Thanks for testing.
--
tejun
--
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