Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Oct 2009 17:10:55 -0700 | Subject | Re: system gets stuck in a lock during boot | From | Justin Mattock <> |
| |
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > * 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 >
So I wasn't going crazy.... Anyways that system(clfs) I still have, I can go ahead and put it back on the machine and see if I hit this again(keep in mind, just got back from a 7hr drive, so it might be tomorrow).
-- Justin P. Mattock -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |