Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-08 Thread Lukasz Trabinski
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:02:10 +0100 (CET) Lukasz Trabinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello On 2.6.19 I had about 60 days uptime, on 2.6.20 2 days :( Did the machine actually fail? Or did it just print these messages and keep going? Was message fr

Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-08 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:56:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This reminds me the current problem in close_files() > > code, where we trigger soft lockup quite regularly. > > > > Is there any chance/interest we can solve the issue

Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This reminds me the current problem in close_files() > code, where we trigger soft lockup quite regularly. > > Is there any chance/interest we can solve the issue Andrew had with > this patch ? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/2/273 yes - the -rt pa

Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-08 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The softlock detector has a long history of false positives and > > precious few true positives, in my experience. > > hm, not so the latest & lamest in my experience. The commit that made it > q

Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-08 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:06:44 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The softlock detector has a long history of false positives and > > precious few true positives, in my experience. > > hm, not so the latest & lamest in my experience.

Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-08 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The softlock detector has a long history of false positives and > precious few true positives, in my experience. hm, not so the latest & lamest in my experience. The commit that made it quite robust was 6687a97d4041f996f725902d2990e5de6ef5cbe5, as o

Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-07 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:02:10 +0100 (CET) Lukasz Trabinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > On 2.6.19 I had about 60 days uptime, on 2.6.20 2 days :( > Did the machine actually fail? Or did it just print these messages and keep going? > > oceanic:~$ uname -a > Linux oceanic.wsisiz.edu.

2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

2007-02-07 Thread Lukasz Trabinski
Hello On 2.6.19 I had about 60 days uptime, on 2.6.20 2 days :( oceanic:~$ uname -a Linux oceanic.wsisiz.edu.pl 2.6.20-oceanic #2 SMP Sun Feb 4 21:55:29 CET 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Feb 7 22:46:00 oceanic kernel: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! Feb 7 22:46:00 oceanic kerne