Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:34:36 +0300 (MSK) | From | malc <> | Subject | Re: Lock-up on PPC64 |
| |
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 03:45 +0300, malc wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 03:08 +0300, malc@pulsesoft.com wrote: >>>> Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 06:04:45AM +0300, malc@pulsesoft.com wrote: >> >> [..snip..] >> [..snip..]
>> >> Now to the Christmas cheer, i've tried v2.6.28 and couldn't help but >> notice that the problem is gone, bisecting v2.6.27 (which funnily i >> had to mark good) to v2.6.28 (which has to be marked bad) wasn't fun >> but eventually converged at ab598b6680f1e74c267d1547ee352f3e1e530f89 >> >> commit ab598b6680f1e74c267d1547ee352f3e1e530f89 >> Author: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> >> Date: Sun Nov 30 11:49:45 2008 +0000 >> >> powerpc: Fix system calls on Cell entered with XER.SO=1 >> >> Now the lock-up is gone, however the code never exercises the path >> taken during the lock-up so i guess it, at least, deserves a better >> look by PPC64 care takers. > > I'm confused. Which code never exercises which path, and so what > deserves a better look?
Before this change (atleast) mono_handle_native_sigsegv was executed (before machine locks-up hard) after the change this code path is never touched.
The fact that machine locks up hard and not even magic sysrq works is what deserves a better look.
[..snip..]
-- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru
| |