Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:15:09 -0400 | Subject | Re: 3.11-rc2: panic in __rdmsr_on_cpu | From | Ilia Mirkin <> |
| |
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I just built a 3.11-rc2 kernel (+ a few patches, but nothing >> arch-related), and I saw the following: http://i.imgur.com/dCTqOyR.jpg >> >> The rough transcription is >> >> Call Trace: >> <IRQ> >> generic_smp_call_fucntion_single_interrupt >> smp_call_function_single_interrupt >> call_function_single_interrupt >> <EOI> >> ? default_idle >> ? default_idle >> arch_cpu_idle >> cpu_startup_entry >> rest_init >> start_kernel >> ? repair_env_string >> x86_64_start_reservations >> x86_64_start_kernel >> Code: ... cc 81 8b 0f <0f> 32 48 c1 e2 20 89 c0 ... >> RIP: __rdmsr_on_cpu+0x2e/0x44 >> Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt >> >> A 3.10-rc7 kernel booted just fine. Is this likely a real issue? Or >> perhaps a mis-build of some sort? > > FWIW this is repeatable. I did a clean build (make clean && make) and > I still see the same thing. I have a Core i7-920 cpu, not sure what > other information would be relevant. I'd love to avoid a bisect, so > some likely candidates would be most welcome.
Aha, figured it out. I had enabled "X86 package temperature thermal driver" = Y, which caused my Core i7-920 to produce the above trace on boot. Glancing over the code, should this:
if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_DTHERM) && !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PTS)) return -ENODEV;
perhaps be
if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_DTHERM) || !cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_PTS)) return -ENODEV;
i.e. are both of those things required, or just one of them? My cpu has DTHERM but not PTS, according to /proc/cpuinfo.
-ilia
| |