From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>
Cc: Justin Mattock <justinmattock@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: system gets stuck in a lock during boot
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:41:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091004174113.GB24418@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091002211211.GA2633@redhat.com>
* Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:49:44PM -0700, Justin Mattock wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Justin Mattock<justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> O.K. I feel better, deleted
> > >>>>> my system, and threw in a minimal built system
> > >>>>> with only the bare essentials to boot.
> > >>>>> (just to make sure things are correct).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> unfortunately after building rc6 I'm still hitting
> > >>>>> this. really am not sure why this is happening.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Could you please double-check the bisection result by doing this:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> git revert af6af30c0f
> > >>>>
> > >>>> on the latest kernel and seeing whether that fixes the lockup?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Bisections are very efficient and hence very sensitive as well to
> > >>>> minimal errors. Just one small mistake near the end of a bisection
> > >>>> can blame the wrong commit.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So the best way to double-check such 100%-triggerable crashes is to
> > >>>> do the revert. I tried the revert and it can be done fine here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [ _If_ that does not fix the bug then to save time you can
> > >>>> 'backtrack' the bisection, instead of re-doing it completely.
> > >>>> I.e. you have your bisection log, re-check the final steps going
> > >>>> backwards. Once you find a discrepancy (i.e. a 'bad' point that
> > >>>> is 'good' or the other way around), redo the bisection log
> > >>>> commands up to that point and continue it up to the end. ]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ingo
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> shoot, I did not see your post here. when looking at my bisect
> > >>> log, I guess after a git bisect reset it clears?
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyways after git bisect had finished I looked manually at the
> > >>> commits that it had generated the one which I had sent in a post
> > >>> previously, and this one:
> > >>>
> > >>> 9424edc2da097c8589fcc24a72552d33e54be161
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> (this commit has no effect on your kernel image, at all.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > yep. but it was worth a try.
> > >>>
> > >>> at the time looking at the commit, I see this to be more of the
> > >>> cause because of it being related to elf as so forth, but as soon
> > >>> as I reverted this on rc6 made no difference.(the previous commit
> > >>> fixes this for me, on a regular tar.ball as well as in git.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think at this point since this system is a fresh from scratch
> > >>> build, I think something might be wrong that I'm doing (all the
> > >>> CFLAGS, and such are in a previous post).
> > >>>
> > >>> At the moment I don't have a problem applying a patch to the
> > >>> kernel for this. especially since I'm the only one that seems to
> > >>> be hitting this, then if more and more reports of this happen then
> > >>> we can go from there.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What would be nice is to verify your bisection end result, i.e. do
> > >> what i suggested:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > yeah I've done this on both kernels three to be exact, and all boot after
> > > reverting
> > > Fix perf-tracepoint OOPS.
> > >
> > > As for my system, I'm still convinced that I might be doing something wrong
> > > over here.
> > >
> > >>>> Could you please double-check the bisection result by doing this:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> git revert af6af30c0f
> > >>>>
> > >>>> on the latest kernel and seeing whether that fixes the lockup?
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> if this doesnt fix it on latest -git then this commit is not the
> > >> cause of the lockup.
> > >>
> > >> Ingo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > This commit(Fix perf-tracepoint OOPS.)does fix my stuckage, but I'm left, as
> > > well as others asking
> > > the question of why.
> > > In any case I still think I'm setting something wrong with either gcc, or
> > > something
> > > that might be causing this from userland.
> > >
> > > Justin P. Mattock
> > >
> >
> > O.k. here something awkward about this issue I was
> > experiencing. at the moment I have two imac's
> > here the descriptions:
> >
> > imac A) the one with the problem
> >
> > OS: built from the clfs book
> > x86_64 multilib with only lib64
> >
> > built everything with these flags:
> > CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2
> > -mfpmath=both -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer
> > -fstack-protection"
> > CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
> > while compiling everything with
> > gcc version: 4.5.0 20090730
> >
> >
> > imac B) the one that works
> >
> > OS: clfs(just built a few days ago)
> > x86_64 pure64 bit build
> > (lib with a symlink to lib64)
> > CFLAGS="-m64 -mtune=core2 -march=core2
> > -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
> > CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="{-j3}"
> > gcc version: 4.4.1 (GCC for Cross-LFS 4.4.1.20090722)
> >
> > The only things I can think of is either I hit something
> > because of gcc, something goes wrong with the libraries,
> > or there something happening with either the option
> > of mfpmath=both or stackprotection.
> >
> > At this point since the kernel seems to be running fine,
> > is to just trash the system that has this issue and just leave
> > it at, I was hitting some weird anomaly.
> >
>
> hi Justin,
>
> I've been playing around with gcc '4.5' as well and hit a panic that
> looks very similar to what you've seen with stock 2.6.31 - I haven't
> seen it anywhere else. Anyways, it seems to be some sort of alignment
> issue with the 'struct ftrace_event_call'. I'm not sure yet if this is a
> compiler or kernel issue. But the following kernel patch fixes the issue
> for me. It would be interesting to verify if the patch also resolves the
> issue for you.
Would be nice to know precisely what kind of problem is being hit here -
we'd like to fix either the kernel or GCC - depending on where the bug
lies.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-04 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-13 15:42 Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-18 10:49 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2009-08-18 16:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-18 16:24 ` Justin Mattock
2009-08-18 19:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-18 20:06 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-18 23:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-18 23:55 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-19 0:23 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-19 0:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-19 1:18 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-19 1:10 ` Li Zefan
2009-08-20 5:51 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-22 7:48 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-24 2:41 ` Li Zefan
2009-08-24 3:07 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-24 5:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-24 6:13 ` Li Zefan
2009-08-24 6:49 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-24 6:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-24 7:54 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-24 8:40 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-24 19:19 ` Justin Mattock
2009-08-25 5:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-25 6:04 ` Li Zefan
2009-08-25 6:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-25 8:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-26 0:22 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-08-26 7:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-08-26 14:42 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-09-07 21:49 ` Justin Mattock
2009-10-02 21:12 ` Jason Baron
2009-10-04 17:41 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-10-05 0:10 ` Justin Mattock
2009-10-06 1:00 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-06 1:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-06 2:01 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-06 14:31 ` Jason Baron
2009-10-06 15:12 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-06 1:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-06 20:32 ` Jason Baron
2009-10-06 22:30 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 2:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-07 2:42 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 13:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-07 14:53 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 15:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-07 15:52 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 16:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-07 17:47 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 18:45 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 18:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-07 19:08 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-12 10:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-12 18:16 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-10-07 14:30 ` Jason Baron
2009-10-07 14:40 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-10-07 14:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-10-07 15:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-10-07 15:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-24 19:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-08-24 23:34 ` Justin Mattock
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091004174113.GB24418@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=justinmattock@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®