Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <tglx@...>, <penberg@...>, <linux-usb@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <jmorris@...>, <sds@...>
Date: Friday, April 18, 2008 - 3:37 am

* Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:



incidentally, just today, in overnight testing i triggered a similar 
hang in the KGDB self-test:

  http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/config-Thu_Apr_17_23_46_36_CEST_2008.bad

to get a similar tree to the one i tested, pick up sched-devel/latest 
from:

   http://people.redhat.com/mingo/sched-devel.git/README 

pick up that failing .config, do 'make oldconfig' and accept all the 
defaults to get a comparable kernel to mine. (kgdb is embedded in 
sched-devel.git.)

the hang was at:

[   12.504057] Calling initcall 0xffffffff80b800c1: init_kgdbts+0x0/0x1b()
[   12.511298] kgdb: Registered I/O driver kgdbts.
[   12.515062] kgdbts:RUN plant and detach test
[   12.520283] kgdbts:RUN sw breakpoint test
[   12.524651] kgdbts:RUN bad memory access test
[   12.529052] kgdbts:RUN singlestep breakpoint test

full log:

  http://redhat.com/~mingo/misc/log-Thu_Apr_17_23_46_36_CEST_2008.bad

note that this was a 64-bit config too - our tests do a perfect mix of 
50% 32-bit and 50% 64-bit kernels. So single-stepping of the kernel 
broke in some circumstances.

find the boot log below. (it also includes all command line parameters) 

This is the first time ever i saw the self-test in KGDB hanging, so it's 
some recent non-KGDB change that provoked it or made it more likely. The 
KGDB self-test runs very frequently in my bootup tests:

[   12.508236] kgdb: Registered I/O driver kgdbts.
[   12.511245] kgdbts:RUN plant and detach test
[   12.517418] kgdbts:RUN sw breakpoint test
[   12.521056] kgdbts:RUN bad memory access test
[   12.525515] kgdbts:RUN singlestep breakpoint test
[   12.531483] kgdbts:RUN hw breakpoint test
[   12.536142] kgdbts:RUN hw write breakpoint test
[   12.541007] kgdbts:RUN access write breakpoint test
[   12.546223] kgdbts:RUN do_fork for 100 breakpoints

so the latest kgdb-light tree literally survived thousands of such tests 
since it was changed last.

unfortunately, the condition was not reproducible - i booted it once 
more and then it came up just fine - using the same bzImage.

there's no recent change in x86.git related to the TF flag that i could 
think of to cause something like this. I checked changes to traps_64.c 
and entry_64.S, and nothing suspicious.

	Ingo
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 7:03 pm)
2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Mon Apr 28, 12:42 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz..., (Mon Apr 28, 2:44 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 5:43 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 11:49 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 12:58 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz..., (Tue Apr 29, 5:37 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Wed Apr 30, 7:16 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Andrew Morton, (Mon Apr 28, 12:59 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 5:39 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:50 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:53 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pavel Machek, (Fri Apr 18, 7:07 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pavel Machek, (Fri Apr 18, 5:42 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Alan Stern, (Fri Apr 18, 11:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:57 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 5:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 8:18 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:09 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Apr 18, 2:40 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:24 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, James Morris, (Fri Apr 18, 6:32 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Apr 18, 3:25 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 2:56 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Apr 18, 1:49 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 2:10 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:19 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:28 am)
Re: Stack protector build failure (was Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not l..., Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Apr 18, 12:57 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 5:28 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Thu Apr 17, 7:55 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 9:35 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Fri Apr 18, 10:57 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 8:04 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Fri Apr 18, 10:55 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 7:40 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 8:14 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Thu Apr 17, 11:05 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:37 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 5:54 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 7:46 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 8:34 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 8:41 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 9:02 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 9:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 9:27 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 10:47 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 12:02 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Greg KH, (Thu Apr 17, 7:24 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Kay Sievers, (Thu Apr 17, 8:48 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 12:07 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 9:12 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Dan Williams, (Thu Apr 17, 7:24 pm)