[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2220835.PTjEcfuM0P@donald.sf-tec.de>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:10:11 +0200
From: Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Hard lockups using 3.10.0
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:09:19AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Meanwhile I found that there was a hardware defect on this machine.
> > So if it does not happen again I will assume that this was caused by
> > this.
>
> What hardware defect exactly? DIMMs failing...? Probably, since it looks
> like the spinlock gets corrupted and the assertion fires... In any case,
> it would be interesting to know for future reference.
The RAM seems fine. It looks like it is the mainboard or a harddisk. The issues
have magically disappeared since 3 weeks, but I have not done any suspend2disk
since then anymore. Before that I had suspended the machine on the evening and
resumed when I came to work. So it's possible that there was some corrupted
stuff in the image.
This is the smart output I got of one disk yesterday:
Vendor: /0:0:0:0
Product:
User Capacity: 600,332,565,813,390,450 bytes [600 PB]
Logical block size: 774843950 bytes
scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46
>> Terminate command early due to bad response to IEC mode page
A mandatory SMART command failed: exiting. To continue, add one or more '-T
permissive' options.
Eike
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists