Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with Exception: 501 on powerpc
Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:26:09AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: down() looks OK, but there's still a spin_lock_irq() in __down_common(), although I don't know if it makes sense for us to be in __down() at that stage. The spin_lock_irq in __down_common is correct. We're going to schedule(), so we spin_unlock_irq() to save us passing the flags into the helper function. If we had interrupts disabled on entry, there's an Aieee for that. Hi All, Sorry for all the noise made :-(, something wrong in the test setup from my end, the kernel was 2.6.25-rc3-mm1 not 2.6.25-rc5-mm1. This bug is not seen in the 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel. -- Thanks Regards, Kamalesh Babulal, ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with Exception: 501 on powerpc
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:25:37 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andrew, The 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panics while bootup on powerpc returning from prom_init Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x Faulting instruction address: 0xc000d5dc cpu 0x0: Vector: 300 (Data Access) at [c07636e0] pc: c000d5dc: .do_IRQ+0x74/0x1f4 lr: c000d5a8: .do_IRQ+0x40/0x1f4 sp: c0763960 msr: 80001032 dar: 0 dsisr: 4000 current = 0xc0688e60 paca= 0xc0689900 pid = 0, comm = swapper enter ? for help [c0763a00] c0004c24 hardware_interrupt_entry+0x24/0x28 --- Exception: 501 (Hardware Interrupt) at c06021b0 .free_bootmem_core+0x94/0xcc [link register ] c060373c .free_bootmem_with_active_regions+0x78/0xb8 [c0763cf0] c0602610 .init_bootmem_core+0x5c/0xfc (unreliable) [c0763d80] c05eb68c .do_init_bootmem+0x964/0xaf0 [c0763e50] c05e03b0 .setup_arch+0x1a4/0x218 [c0763ee0] c05d76bc .start_kernel+0xe8/0x424 [c0763f90] c0008590 .start_here_common+0x60/0xd0 Beats me. Maybe we're still enabling interrupts too early. But the new semaphore code got fixed (didn't it?) ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with Exception: 501 on powerpc
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:25:37 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beats me. Maybe we're still enabling interrupts too early. But the new semaphore code got fixed (didn't it?) On the 7th, according to my records. Easy to check -- look in kernel/semaphore.c and see whether down() is using spin_lock_irqsave (good) or spin_lock_irq (bad). -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with Exception: 501 on powerpc
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 18:25 +0530, Kamalesh Babulal wrote: Hi Andrew, The 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panics while bootup on powerpc returning from prom_init Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x Faulting instruction address: 0xc000d5dc cpu 0x0: Vector: 300 (Data Access) at [c07636e0] pc: c000d5dc: .do_IRQ+0x74/0x1f4 lr: c000d5a8: .do_IRQ+0x40/0x1f4 sp: c0763960 msr: 80001032 dar: 0 dsisr: 4000 current = 0xc0688e60 paca= 0xc0689900 pid = 0, comm = swapper enter ? for help [c0763a00] c0004c24 hardware_interrupt_entry+0x24/0x28 --- Exception: 501 (Hardware Interrupt) at c06021b0 .free_bootmem_core+0x94/0xcc [link register ] c060373c .free_bootmem_with_active_regions+0x78/0xb8 [c0763cf0] c0602610 .init_bootmem_core+0x5c/0xfc (unreliable) [c0763d80] c05eb68c .do_init_bootmem+0x964/0xaf0 [c0763e50] c05e03b0 .setup_arch+0x1a4/0x218 [c0763ee0] c05d76bc .start_kernel+0xe8/0x424 [c0763f90] c0008590 .start_here_common+0x60/0xd0 Is this only on one machine ? happens all the time ? I ran into similar issues on rc3-mm1. rc5-mm1 seems to be working fine for me on ppc64. Thanks, Badari ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with Exception: 501 on powerpc
Beats me. Maybe we're still enabling interrupts too early. But the new semaphore code got fixed (didn't it?) Won't lockdep/irqtrace warn if that happens ? You don't yet have the lockdep patches for ppc64 (I'm still trying to find out why they break iSeries) but it should warn of such a spurrious IRQ enable on other archs too... At least, from a quick look at the code, it -seems- that it does have such a test. Cheers, Ben. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [BUG] 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 kernel panic with Exception: 501 on powerpc
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 11:51 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:46:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:25:37 +0530 Kamalesh Babulal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Beats me. Maybe we're still enabling interrupts too early. But the new semaphore code got fixed (didn't it?) On the 7th, according to my records. Easy to check -- look in kernel/semaphore.c and see whether down() is using spin_lock_irqsave (good) or spin_lock_irq (bad). down() looks OK, but there's still a spin_lock_irq() in __down_common(), although I don't know if it makes sense for us to be in __down() at that stage. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
