> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Meelis Roos wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is on my trusty IBM PC365, dual Pentium Pro. 4.10 worked fine, > > > > > > 4.10.0-09686-g9e314890292c and 4.10.0-10770-g2d6be4abf514 exhibit a > > > > > > problem. Ocassionally NMI watchdog kicks in and discovers one of > > > > > > the > > > > > > CPUs in LOCKUP. The system keeps running fine. The first lockup was > > > > > > different, all the others were from arch_cpu_idle. Sometime ecey > > > > > > couple > > > > > > of seconds (after some activity), sometimes nothing for a long time > > > > > > (idle, no SSH logins). > > > > > > > > > > The only watchdog related patch which hit after 4.10 is: > > > > > > > > > > 8dcde9def5a1 kernel/watchdog.c: do not hardcode CPU 0 as the initial > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > Can you try to revert that for a start? I'm not seeing why it should > > > > > be the > > > > > culprit from a quick glance, but ... > > > > > > > > Reverting this patch does not help. > > > > > > I did not expect that, but excluding it was a valid shot in the > > > dark. Thanmks for trying. > > > > > > To be honest, I have no idea what causes that at the moment, but I will > > > come back to you tomorrow after thinking it through (with brain awake) how > > > to debug this. > > > > Went through the related changes which came in during the merge window. One > > which affects the per cpu timers is: 914122c389d0 > > > > Can you try to revert that one please? > > Running out of obvious culprits. Any chance that you can do a bisect or > this too painful on that box?
I started bisect yesterday on the P4 that has one similar occurrance. -- Meelis Roos (mr...@linux.ee)
