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!
[] dump_stack+0x24/0x30
[] softlockup
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:48:37PM +0200, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> Can you try running on another Geode LX system, just to rule out a
> hardware problem on you board?
Hmm, I thought I saw it on two systems already, but I should go try that
again.
--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:08:07AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > Well I don't know, but something is going wrong and causing the soft
> > lock up. I must admit I am surprised if an interrupt can occour while
> > handling an i
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:02:36PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Well I don't know, but something is going wrong and causing the soft
> lock up. I must admit I am surprised if an interrupt can occour while
> handling an interrupt, but then again maybe that is supposed to be
> allowed.
I tried
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 11:24:33AM -0700, Don Fry wrote:
> All instances of obtaining the lock in pcnet32 are done as
> spin_lock_irqsave except the interrupt handler itself. The interrupt mask
> needs to be saved everywhere else, but the interrupt handler is known not
> to need to save the flags.
All instances of obtaining the lock in pcnet32 are done as
spin_lock_irqsave except the interrupt handler itself. The interrupt mask
needs to be saved everywhere else, but the interrupt handler is known not
to need to save the flags.
If the lock is held and the same CPU tries to get the lock agai
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 01:44:56PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 11:40:09AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:34:38PM +0200, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > > For the "what" part, see Documentation/lockdep-design.txt. You'll enable
> > > it by wit
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 11:40:09AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:34:38PM +0200, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > For the "what" part, see Documentation/lockdep-design.txt. You'll enable
> > it by with SPINLOCK_DEBUG, indeed.
>
> Well I hope to see it hit the BUG again soo
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 05:34:38PM +0200, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> For the "what" part, see Documentation/lockdep-design.txt. You'll enable
> it by with SPINLOCK_DEBUG, indeed.
Well I hope to see it hit the BUG again soon then to see what it has to
say.
--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from thi
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 11:19:34AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:33:26PM +0200, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:10:24AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:31:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Should
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:33:26PM +0200, Frederik Deweerdt wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:10:24AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:31:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> [...]
> > Should line 2563 be a spin_lock_irqsave instead along with the
> > appropriate unl
On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:10:24AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:31:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
[...]
> Should line 2563 be a spin_lock_irqsave instead along with the
> appropriate unluck later?
IIRC, when you enable lockdep, it will complain about spinlocks us
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 04:31:43PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> I have had this happen a few times recently and was wondering if anyone
> has an idea what could be going on:
>
> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
> [] dump_stack+0x24/0x30
> [] softlockup_tick+0x7e/0xc0
> [] update_process_
13 matches
Mail list logo
