[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150402182607.GA8896@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:26:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris J Arges <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
Rafael David Tinoco <inaddy@...ntu.com>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Gema Gomez <gema.gomez-solano@...onical.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: smp_call_function_single lockups
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> So unless we find a real clear signature of the bug (I was hoping
> that the ISR bit would be that sign), I don't think trying to bisect
> it based on how quickly you can reproduce things is worthwhile.
So I'm wondering (and I might have missed some earlier report that
outlines just that), now that the possible location of the bug is
again sadly up to 15+ million lines of code, I have no better idea
than to debug by symptoms again: what kind of effort was made to
examine the locked up state itself?
Softlockups always have some direct cause, which task exactly causes
scheduling to stop altogether, why does it lock up - or is it not a
clear lockup, just a very slow system?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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