Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:20:14 +0100 | | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | | Subject | Re: [BUG] kernel freezes with latest tree |
| |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 03:44:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Maybe a recent change in NMI handling, or perf events ? > > Unlikely. And it shouldn't show up in the merge commit anyway, those > things should be pretty independent. > > > No idea why the bisection (I redid it carefully : same result) points to the above commit. > > Ok, so the bisect is almost certainly correct. But just to be anal and > really careful, can you independently check both parents of the merge, > and then re-check the merge itself, and verify that the two parent > commits never hang, and that the merged state hangs. > > Just to take any bisection issues out of the picture, and just verify > those three commits by hand. > > But in the meantime, we should assume that it's the merge that is the problem. > > I added Frederic to the cc, because he did the > tick_nohz_idle_enter_norcu(), so maybe he can tell if there is > something in that merge that looks suspicious (Frederic - see the > history of the thread on lkml. I thought maybe it was the lack of > irq-disable around set_cpu_sd_state_idle(), but Eric already tested > that). And Suresh because he worked on the whole nohz/nr_busy_cpus. > Maybe you guys see some obvious semantic clash..
As the thread evolved I guess we found the issue or at least we got more clues.
But just in case, I double checked the merge but nothing looked suspicious to me.
Thanks.
> > Anybody? Any ideas? Clearly there can be a merge problem that doesn't > actually show as a real data conflict, just some semantic conflict, > but I don't see what such issues would be brouht in by the scheduler > merge anyway. > > Linus
|  |