On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 11:25 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 11:32 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > which points again to smp_call_function_single... > > > > Yup, it doesn't bring more information. At this stage, your 'other' CPU > > is stuck with interrupts disabled. Hard to tell what's happening without > > some HW assist. Do you have ways to trigger a non-maskable interrupt > > such as a 0x100 ? That would allow to catch the other guy in xmon and > > see what it was doing... > > Interrupts are not disabled on the other CPU thread, at least not according to > the irqs_disabled() check I added to the printing of the `spinlock lockup' > message in __spin_lock_debug(). > > As the log also said > > | hardirqs last enabled at (5018779): [<c000000000007c1c>] restore+0x1c/0xe4 > | hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [<c000000000003600>] > decrementer_common+0x100/0x180 > > I started blinking the LEDs on decrementer interupts, which do arrive on both > CPU threads.
Hrm, ok I though the log shows the decrementer interrupt of the thread that's still working. If you are confident they are both taking interrupts, then there's indeed something to track down. > However, I'm a bit puzzled by these `hardirqs last enabled/disabled' messages, > as they do indicate interrupts are off... Well, at the time of the sample, the other CPU indeed -seems- to be in an IRQ disabled section yes. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev