Re: 2.6.25-rc: complete lockup on boot/start of X (bisected)

[Marcin Slusarz]

On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 08:58:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 20:47 +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 08:11:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 20:00 +0100, Marcin Slusarz wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > Since early 2.6.25 days I'm having strange lockup on boot. As it happens
> > > > rarely (in ~10% of boots), I couldn't bisect it. No kernel panic, SysRq
> > > > didn't work, so I couldn't provide any useful informations to LK community.
> > > > I hoped someone else would fix it... :)
> > > > 
> > > > It's rc3 so I decided to narrow it down myself. I enabled netconsole 
> > > > to see whether some other informations are printed before lockup.
> > > > It didn't help, but I noticed that lockup happens much more frequenly! (~50%)
> > > > So I bisected it down to:
> > > > 
> > > > 8f4d37ec073c17e2d4aa8851df5837d798606d6f is first bad commit
> > > > commit 8f4d37ec073c17e2d4aa8851df5837d798606d6f
> > > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date:   Fri Jan 25 21:08:29 2008 +0100
> > > > 
> > > >     sched: high-res preemption tick
> > > > 
> > > >     Use HR-timers (when available) to deliver an accurate preemption tick.
> > > > 
> > > >     The regular scheduler tick that runs at 1/HZ can be too coarse when nice
> > > >     level are used. The fairness system will still keep the cpu utilisation 'fair'
> > > >     by then delaying the task that got an excessive amount of CPU time but try to
> > > >     minimize this by delivering preemption points spot-on.
> > > > 
> > > >     The average frequency of this extra interrupt is sched_latency / nr_latency.
> > > >     Which need not be higher than 1/HZ, its just that the distribution within the
> > > >     sched_latency period is important.
> > > > 
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > :040000 040000 ab225228500f7a19d5ad20ca12ca3fc8ff5f5ad1 f1742e1d225a72aecea9d6961ed989b5943d31d8 M      arch
> > > > :040000 040000 25d85e4ef7a71b0cc76801a2526ebeb4dce180fe ae61510186b4fad708ef0211ac169decba16d4e5 M      include
> > > > :040000 040000 9247cec7dd506c648ac027c17e5a07145aa41b26 950832cc1dc4d30923f593ecec883a06b45d62e9 M      kernel
> > > > 
> > > > I can't revert it on top of rc3 because of conflicts.
> > > 
> > > This should do, I guess. Weird though, I haven't had trouble with this
> > > patch in a long long while. Nor I suppose has Ingo's QA setup.
> > Ok. It did the trick. But it's temporary fix, right?
> 
> Yeah, for a proper fix I'd need to understand what goes wrong.. and that
> requires I get more information. Hopefully I can reproduce your issue.
> 
> > > Will try if I can reproduce using your .config.
> > I think this lockup might depend on use of dhcp and/or parallel
> > starting of services...
> 
> It _should_ not.. :-) I can try dhcp quite easily, if nothing comes up I
> can try installing gentoo on a test box, stage3 installs are easy
> enough.

I'm still having this lockup on 2.6.25-rc6 (028011e1391eab27e7bc113c2ac08d4f55584a75).
What informations do you need?

Marcin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/