[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1309190906220.31380@vincent-weaver-1.um.maine.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:10:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf-related lockup on 3.11
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Vince Weaver wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I got this hard lockup running my perf_fuzzer on 3.11 on a core2.
> >> I guess I should try to reproduce it on linus-git but was hoping
> >> I could wait until -rc1 before trying that.
> >
> > OK, I can also lock up 3.12-rc1 using the perf_fuzzer. Last message
> > logged is below.
>
> If it's easily reproducible and a regression, could you perhaps bisect it?
It's not necessarily easy to reproduce. It shows up eventually, but it
varies a bit.
It's also unclear whether it is a regression or not. It only started
appearing because I already got fixed the 5 or so other bugs that the
fuzzer would trigger first. So bisecting will be a pain because older
kernels would have to be patched and the patches don't necessarily apply
cleanly further back.
I'm working on seeing if I can get a reproducible trace that I can work
with, but there's a lot of other stuff going on right now so it's semi low
priority until I can spare a machine from doing 3.12-rc1 validation tests.
Vince
--
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