lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: system gets stuck in a lock during boot
    From
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-05 02:25    [W:0.039 / U:60.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site