"The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas," noted Arjan van de Ven, announcing the new website. He included a summary of the top 10 oopses collected in the past 7 days noting, "this is the first such report that I'm posting; Please let me know if this is useful or not."
Feedback was positive. Andrew Morton commented, "well that would have been fun to write." Steven Richter expressed some concern about the tool counting the same bug report duplicate times when found in different places. Arjan aggreed, "this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to distinguish a duplicate report from two reports of the same bug." Another concern was in separating oops generated by 2.6.X-rcY kernels from 2.6.X-rcY-mmZ kernels. Arjan noted, "finding what exact kernel version an oops is from is... surprisingly hard. And to be honest, bugs against -mm are still very interesting, since they'll be the next mainline after all".
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>
Subject: Top kernel oopses/warnings this week
Date: Dec 14, 2:46 pm 2007
The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas; below is a top 10
list of the oopses collected in the last 7 days. (Reports prior to 2.6.23 have been omitted in collecting the top 10)
This is the first such report that I'm posting; Please let me know if this is useful or not.
hid_output_report warning
Warning at drivers/hid/hid-core.c:784 implement()
16 times last week
<no specific version information available>
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=implement
softlockup in tick_broadcast_oneshot_control
3 times last week
Only seen in 2.6.24-rc4 so far
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2409
hiddev_ioctl crash
3 times last week
Only seen in 2.6.24-rc3 so far
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2428
shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree crash
BUG at fs/dcache.c:595
2 times last week
Has been seen as far back as 2.6.18
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2365
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree
cpufreq_remove_dev crash
BUG at drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:1060
2 times last week
Has been reported only for 2.6.24-rc4
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=cpufreq_remove_dev
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2458
journal_dirty_data crash (tainted)
BUG at fs/jbd/transaction.c:983
2 times last week
Has been reported only in 2.6.23.9
http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=journal_dirty_data
tcp_fastretrans_alert
WARNING at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:2533 tcp_fastretrans_alert()
2 times last week
Has been reported in 2.6.24-rc4 and -rc5
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=tcp_fastretrans_alert
tcp_sacktag_one
WARNING at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:1280 tcp_sacktag_one()
Reported once
Has only been seen in -rc5 so far
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=tcp_sacktag_one
simple_map_write (MTD)
kernel crash
Reported once this week on 2.6.24-rc5
Has been seen as far back as 2.6.17
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=simple_map_write
tcp_sacktag_walk
WARNING at net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:1280
Reported once on 2.6.24-rc5
Has been seen only on 2.6.24-rc5
More Info: http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=tcp_sacktag_walk
--
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Subject: Re: Top kernel oopses/warnings this week
Date: Dec 14, 5:57 pm 2007
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:46:36 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas
Well that would have been fun to write. Does it watch
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bugme-new ?
--
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...>
Subject: Re: Top kernel oopses/warnings this week
Date: Dec 15, 11:49 am 2007
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas;
A few comments:
Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
same report.¹
Reports against 2.6.X-rcY-mmZ are listed in the same category as reports
against 2.6.X-rcY. To distinguish -mm reports from vanilla reports, one
has to look into the details of each bug entry.¹
A general weakness is that it is ultimately impossible to know whether a
report was against an unpatched kernel, unless one drills down to the
individual mailinglist threads.
Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
untainted kernel was found.
¹) example: http://www.kerneloops.org/oops.php?number=2335
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== ==-- -====
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>
Subject: Re: Top kernel oopses/warnings this week
Date: Dec 15, 2:21 pm 2007
Stefan Richter wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning
>> reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas;
>
> A few comments:
>
> Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
> same report.¹
this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to distinguish a duplicate report from
two reports of the same bug.
>
> Reports against 2.6.X-rcY-mmZ are listed in the same category as reports
> against 2.6.X-rcY. To distinguish -mm reports from vanilla reports, one
> has to look into the details of each bug entry.¹
finding what exact kernel version an oops is from is... surprisingly hard.
And to be honest, bugs against -mm are still very interesting, since they'll be
the next mainline after all
>
> A general weakness is that it is ultimately impossible to know whether a
> report was against an unpatched kernel, unless one drills down to the
> individual mailinglist threads.
for the same reason patched kernels are relevant. And if someone has a super weirdo kernel,
well, as long as we get enough bug data it'll be way down in the noise.
> Reports about tainted kernels have arguably less value. It would be
> good to hide such reports until a report of the same oops in an
> untainted kernel was found.
That's half of what is done right now; they're not hidden though, just very clearly marked.
--
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...>
Subject: Re: Top kernel oopses/warnings this week
Date: Dec 15, 3:44 pm 2007
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Report counts may be too high due to duplicate recognition of the very
>> same report.
>
> this is true however it's .. a hard issue. It's really hard to
> distinguish a duplicate report from two reports of the same bug.
Would be nice though to try to find duplicates like the example I gave.
(The actual report and a reply was listed. The reply just had a full
quote of the oops, with "> " prepended and perhaps lines wrapped.)
Because if an oops is independently reported twice or more, this too
says something about the issue. E.g. flaky RAM and such is pretty much
eliminated as a possible cause.
Anyway, someone who is actually interested in a particular oops and
looks at the posts in your links quickly notices eventual duplicates.
But it would be helpful to people who only have a quick glance at the
bar graphs if you add a note of caution that the figures are not
accurate and not representative, e.g. because of occasional duplicates.
For the same reason, please don't write headings like "Oops statistics
for kernel 2.6.23-release". Unless you mean "statistics" in a narrower
sense like they do statistics in medicine and economics. ;-)
Simply write "Oops reports for kernel...".
>> Reports against 2.6.X-rcY-mmZ are listed in the same category as reports
>> against 2.6.X-rcY. To distinguish -mm reports from vanilla reports, one
>> has to look into the details of each bug entry.¹
>
> finding what exact kernel version an oops is from is... surprisingly hard.
> And to be honest, bugs against -mm are still very interesting, since
> they'll be the next mainline after all
Yes, they definitely are interesting. And it's the same like with the
above issue: People who are genuinely interested in an oops find the
necessary information at the details page. Separating them from
mainline oopses would be a service though for people who want to
- have a quick look at what's urgent and what's not so urgent,
- draw conclusions about the state of the release candidates.
So this is not that important.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== ==-- -====
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
Finally!
... this should have been done a LONG time ago. I'll switch to the first Linux distribution that includes this crash-reporting tool by default! :-)
I have it installed, now how
I have it installed, now how do I use it?? crash the kernel and will it automatically send a report? Id really like to how how the thing worked, yes I've read it's man page, and still no clue as to its use or initialization :(
The
Just "initialize" it by posting your oops at the well known lists...
No, the collection utility
No, the collection utility is supposed to submit the oopses automatically:
"This package contains the tools to collect kernel crash signatures,
and to submit them to the kerneloops.org website where the kernel
crash signatures get collected and groups for presentation to the
Linux kernel developers."