[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090408071102.GB22868@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:11:02 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Justin Madru <jdm64@...ab.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc1: invalid opcode with call trace
* Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > I too have an async hang/crash, on an old-style SCSI (aic7xxx) box
> > > - hang log attached below.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > ( Full bootlog attached below as well - i'm sending the config as a
> > > reply as this mail is close to lkml size limits already. )
> >
> > Config attached.
> >
> > known bad : v2.6.29-9854-gd508afb
> > known good : v2.6.29
> >
> > Suspected commit introducing the regression:
> >
> > 9710794: async: remove the temporary (2.6.29) "async is off by default" code
> >
> > (i'll now try a revert of this.)
>
> That's what I figured was the culprit as well, but that does not
> really tell us anything about what part of async.c is buggy :-)
async.c itself is likely not to be buggy - fundamental bugs that
deep in the center of the kernel usually cannot hide for long :-)
What matters more is the _effects_ of having async bootup now, on
various subsystems it interacts with. Unexpected parallelism and
reordering between init sequences.
It would have been far better to not have such a 'flip the switch
on' moment - but instead a more gradual step by step introduction of
async bootup, with accompanied strong testing.
Ingo
--
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