"Luigi Genoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > reproduced. > it took more or less one hour to reproduce it. I could reproduce it olny > running also irqbalance 0.55 and commenting out the sleep 1. The message in > syslog is the same and then, after a few seconds I think, KABOM! system crash > and reboot. > > I tested also a similar system that has 4 dual core CPU Opteron 2600MHZ. On > this system (linux sees 8 CPU, but it is the same kernel, same gcc, same > config, same glibc, same active services) I could not reproduce it even > running irqbalance 0.55 in almost 1 hour. Maybe I could reproduce it waiting > for more time, but my users need to do their work, so I could not have a > longer test window. So on 16 CPU I had the crash, on 8 CPU I had no crash. > > I need to give back the system to the users, so if you need other tests, > please, tell me as soon.
Ok. Since it seems to be the irq code I'm going to need to get a dump of the state of the apics, basically the output print_IO_APIC from the time this happens. I'm not really out of bed yet so no patch but a heads up. Once I've finished sleeping I'll look at putting a debugging patch together. Getting a bootlog of the identical system that would not crash at 8 cpus would be interesting. In part this is because the number of apic modes that are available for use are much fewer when we have 8 or more cpus, so it would be interesting to see if it is actually using the same code for interrupt delivery. If you have a few minutes to try it, it would be interesting to know if forcing the migration from the command line (as I was suggesting) would reproduce this faster than irqbalance. Hopefully I can think up things to fix this when I wake up. The time zone difference is going to be a pain :( Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
