On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 03:16:27PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > I still can't figure out what could cause this, nor can I recreate it.
Want my .config? > Andy, any idea? I'm trying to figure out why a stack trace of the > initial task, early in start_kernel(), would show start_cpu() on the > stack *twice*. The start_cpu() entry on the stack at ffffffffbce03f50 > is right where it's supposed to be. But then there's another > start_cpu() entry at 0xffffffffbce03f48 which is pointed to by the frame > pointer chain. I can't figure out where that one came from and why the > stack is offset by a word, compared to all the other idle task stacks > I've seen. Btw, why do you have: call 1f # put return address on stack for unwinder there in start_cpu() instead of push $start_cpu or so? That CALL looks strange there. If you want to put the return address, just push start_cpu's address and that's it. Or am I missing something? > Boris, what kind of CPU is it? [ 0.169371] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1620 0 @ 3.60GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x2d, stepping: 0x7) Sandybridge. The model 0x2d corresponds to that INTEL_FAM6_SANDYBRIDGE_X define in intel-family.h. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.