[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxSRujj=cM1NkXYvxmo=Y1hb1e3tgLhdh1JDphzV6WKRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 09:22:04 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>
> Funny, during testing some patches related to Xen I hit the lockup
> issue. It looked a little bit different, but a variation of your patch
> solved my problem.
>
> I could reproduce the issue within a few minutes reliably without the
> patch below. With it the machine survived 12 hours and is still running.
Do you have a backtrace for the failure case? I have no problem
applying this part of the patch (I really don't understand why x86-64
hadn't gotten the proper code from 32-bit), but I'd like to see (and
document) where the fault happens for this.
Since you can apparently reproduce this fairly easily with a broken
kernel, getting a backtrace shouldn't be too hard?
Linus
--
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