Re: Race condition in module load causing undefined symbols

[Steve Lord]

K.R. Foley wrote:
> Steve Lord wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pozsár Balázs wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 08:23:20AM -0500, Steve Lord wrote:
> > > > > >>I think this is not actually module loading itself, but a problem
> > > > >>between the fork/exec/wait code in nash and the kernel.
> > > > > > > I do not use nash, only bash, so this is not a nash-specific 
> > > > issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > I disabled hyperthreading and things started working, so are there any
> > > > HT related scheduling bugs right now?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There haven't been any scheduler changes for some time.  There have 
> > > been a
> > > few low-level SMT changes I think.
> > >
> > > Are you able to identify which kernel version broke it?
> >
> > Still have not narrowed this down too far, disabling SMT made no
> > difference, disabling SMP did, which I was expecting.
> >
> > Steve
>
> I initially saw this with 2.6.12-rc1 and every version up through rc3. I
> haven't tried with later versions. :-/ I initially reported here:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111235814529008&w=2
>
> The way that I got around it was to compile in my aic7xxx driver instead
> of making it a module. I have also recently received an email from
> someone saying that disabling module unloading would also solve it. That
> very well may be true since I did run into another booting problem
> (2.6.12-rc5) that disabling module unloading fixed :-/ I haven't had a
> chance to go back and check this out though.
>
> So to summarize: I have a dual 933 with aic7xxx compiled in to get
> passed the problem described above. I have a dual 2.6 w/HT that I have
> disabled module unloading to get passed another boot condition.

I found another system which exhibits the problem, a dual Xeon
with HT support.

Here is one of the cpus from /proc/cpuinfo

processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 1
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 1.40GHz
stepping        : 1
cpu MHz         : 1393.851
cache size      : 256 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 2
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 2
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm
bogomips        : 2752.51

I discovered that if I disable P4 support on this host and run with
P3 Xeon support instead, things start working. The host type in the
boot up is identified as a P4/Xeon:

Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: Booting processor 2/2 eip 3000
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU 2 irqstacks, hard=c03e7000 soft=c03df000
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: Initializing CPU#2
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 8K
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU: L2 cache: 256K
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU: L3 cache: 512K
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU: Physical Processor ID: 1
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: Intel machine check architecture supported.
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#2.
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU2: Intel P4/Xeon Extended MCE MSRs (12) available
Jun 14 11:25:19 k4 kernel: CPU2: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 1.40GHz stepping 01

So is this some P4 specific optimization which is not working as
intended?

Steve

-
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/