On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:45:11PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > Hmm, I thought I saw it on two systems already, but I should go try that > again.
Hmm, still haven't figured this out. I just saw this one this morning: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! [<c0103fc4>] dump_stack+0x24/0x30 [<c013d36e>] softlockup_tick+0x7e/0xc0 [<c011eb23>] update_process_times+0x33/0x80 [<c01062c9>] timer_interrupt+0x39/0x80 [<c013d6fd>] handle_IRQ_event+0x3d/0x70 [<c013da59>] __do_IRQ+0xa9/0x150 [<c0104e55>] do_IRQ+0x25/0x60 [<c010313a>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20 [<c013d6d8>] handle_IRQ_event+0x18/0x70 [<c013da59>] __do_IRQ+0xa9/0x150 [<c0104e55>] do_IRQ+0x25/0x60 [<c010313a>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20 [<c0119cda>] __do_softirq+0x3a/0xa0 [<c0119d6d>] do_softirq+0x2d/0x30 [<c0119fb7>] irq_exit+0x37/0x40 [<c0104e5a>] do_IRQ+0x2a/0x60 [<c010313a>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20 [<c013dcee>] setup_irq+0xce/0x1e0 [<c013de97>] request_irq+0x97/0xb0 [<d0851f9d>] pcnet32_open+0x4d/0x3d0 [pcnet32] [<c023a4f9>] dev_open+0x39/0x80 [<c0238cea>] dev_change_flags+0xfa/0x130 [<c027eb9f>] devinet_ioctl+0x4ff/0x6f0 [<c022dab1>] sock_ioctl+0xf1/0x1f0 [<c017413c>] do_ioctl+0x2c/0x80 [<c01741e2>] vfs_ioctl+0x52/0x2f0 [<c01744ef>] sys_ioctl+0x6f/0x80 [<c0102ef7>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb [<b7f41d04>] 0xb7f41d04 And it is happening on multiple systems. I am starting to wonder if it is a bug in the soft lockup detection. Maybe it really isn't locked up but just momentarily appears to be. I will try turning off the soft lockup detection and see what happens. -- Len Sorensen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
