On Thu, Nov 20 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:34:09 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Are you removing devices or modules? We have a bug there it seems, does
> > this help?
>
> This is early in boot (we are waiting for the root device while r
Hi Jens,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:34:09 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are you removing devices or modules? We have a bug there it seems, does
> this help?
This is early in boot (we are waiting for the root device while running
on the initramfs) so there could well be modules being
On Thu, Nov 20 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:33 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > ;-) I'm aware of that, I meant the 'timer' data argument. But you are
> > right, it's probably q->queue_lock being NULL here or we would have
> > oopsed earl
Hi Jens,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:33 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ;-) I'm aware of that, I meant the 'timer' data argument. But you are
> right, it's probably q->queue_lock being NULL here or we would have
> oopsed earlier. There's no code line.
>
> > address of the spinlock (
On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:43:00 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >
> > > Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x
> > > Faulting instruction ad
Hi Jens,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:43:00 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x
> > Faulting instruction address: 0xc0503030
> > cpu 0x0: Vector: 300 (Data Acce
On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I got this in my boot test last night:
>
> Begin: Waiting for root file system... ...
> BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, vol_id/3246, c0b09700
> Call Trace:
> [c00040ef7080] [c000fb58] .show_stack+0x70/0x184 (unreliable)
On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:28 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Strange, so it gets stuck on the timer lock, very weird. You don't
> > happen to have output showing that the other CPU is up to at that point?
>
> Unfortun
Hi Jens,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:16:28 +0100 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Strange, so it gets stuck on the timer lock, very weird. You don't
> happen to have output showing that the other CPU is up to at that point?
Unfortunately, no, but I will see what I can find tomorrow.
Today's
Hi all,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:30:23 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This was on a Power5 partition. I am attempting to reproduce the problem.
OK, it reproduces. The machine is a Power5 partition (IBM,9124-720
eServer OpenPower 720) with 1 (2 way threaded) cpu (gr, rev2.1,
Hi all,
I got this in my boot test last night:
Begin: Waiting for root file system... ...
BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, vol_id/3246, c0b09700
Call Trace:
[c00040ef7080] [c000fb58] .show_stack+0x70/0x184 (unreliable)
[c00040ef7130] [c027adac] ._raw_spin_lock+0x140/
11 matches
Mail list logo
