[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332347432.18960.497.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:30:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rjw@...k.pl
Subject: Re: Regression in v3.4-rc0 " BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for
29s! [migration/0:6]..[<ffffffff810d3b8b>] stop_machine_cpu_stop+0x7b/0xf"
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 16:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:26 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:53:22PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > Seeing this in v3.4-rc0 tree and didn't see that with v3.3:
> >
> > Hey Peter,
> >
> > Git bisection points this to the fault of
> > 5fbd036b552f633abb394a319f7c62a5c86a9cd7 " sched: Cleanup cpu_active madness"
> >
> > thoughts? (also attaching the .config)
>
> Argh.. so when is this? boot? No that's somewhat unexpected. I have one
> report of funnies during a hotplug bash that I'm looking into, but I
> haven't actually been able to reproduce that report myself either.
is arch/x86/xen/smp.c:cpu_bringup() missing a call to
notify_cpu_starting() before doing set_cpu_online()?
Also, shouldn't that also take the ipi_call_lock() around setting the
cpu online?
--
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