[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130625172609.GA17050@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:26:09 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 01:21:30PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 12:55 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > While I've been spinning wheels trying to reproduce that softlockup bug,
> > On another machine I've been refining my list-walk debug patch.
> > I added an ugly "ok, the ringbuffer is playing games with lower two bits" special case.
> >
> > But what the hell is going on here ?
> >
> > next->prev should be prev (ffff88023c6cdd18), but was 00ffff88023c6cdd. (next=ffff880243288001).
> >
> > (trace comes from the same ringbuffer code)
>
> What's the above saying? ffff880243288000->prev == 00ffff88023c6cdd but
> it should have been ffff88023c6cdd18? That is: ffff88023c6cdd18->next ==
> ffff880243288001?
It's saying something has done >>8 on a pointer, and stuck it in a list head.
> Not sure how that would mess up. The ring-buffer code has lots of
> integrity checks to make sure nothing like this breaks.
My integrity checks can beat up your integrity checks.
Dav
--
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