Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
Well, at the time of the sample, the other CPU indeed -seems- to be in
an IRQ disabled section yes.
This is not really a sample. The hardirqs enable/disable is actually tracked
using the TRACE_{EN,DIS}ABLE_INTS macros.
That's what I meant. IE. the hardirq state was updated by the stuck CPU
but sampled by the non-stuck one. ie. the non-stuck one could have
sampled a transcient value where it happened to have hard irq
disabled...
For the decrementer, the interrupt code is generated by the
STD_EXCEPTION_COMMON_LITE() macro.
Yeah, I know that :-)
Aha, none of the PPC interrupt handlers actually us TRACE_ENABLE_INTS (they do
use TRACE_DISABLE_INTS). So that's why it thinks decrementer_common disabled
interrupts, without enabling them again...
Well, they aren't supposed to enable IRQs if they were disabled...
Ben.
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony Techsoft Centre Europe
The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453
Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 13:46 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Well, at the time of the sample, the other CPU indeed -seems- to be in
an IRQ disabled section yes.
This is not really a sample. The hardirqs enable/disable is actually
tracked
using the TRACE_{EN,DIS}ABLE_INTS macros.
That's what I meant. IE. the hardirq state was updated by the stuck CPU
but sampled by the non-stuck one. ie. the non-stuck one could have
sampled a transcient value where it happened to have hard irq
disabled...
These states are per_cpu.
I know, but that doesn't prevent another CPU from peeking at them :-)
The question is, was the message printed by the CPU that locked up or by
the other one that detected the lockup ?
It's printed by the spinlock debug code, i.e. by the CPU that wants to take the
spinlock (in this case the spinlock for the BKL).
They do call TRACE_DISABLE_INTS, which records the interrupt being disabled.
So this makes the actual state recording useless...
Well, they record that when they disable it. They don't enable it. Can
you find a spot where the IRQ is enabled and it's not recorded or a case
where it's not disabled and recorded as disabled ?
I guess it's auto-enabled when the decrementer interrupt handler exits?
So shouldn't there be a `bl trace_hardirqs_on' somewhere?
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony Techsoft Centre Europe
The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453
Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
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): [c0007c1c] restore+0x1c/0xe4 | hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [c0003600] 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
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
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): [c0007c1c] restore+0x1c/0xe4 | hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [c0003600] decrementer_common+0x100/0x180 I started blinking the LEDs on decrementer interupts, which do arrive on both CPU threads. However, I'm a bit puzzled by these `hardirqs last enabled/disabled' messages, as they do indicate interrupts are off... It could be something in the ps3vram driver causing the kernel to lockup Now the question is whether the kernel is stuffed with something like a deadlock with interrupts off, or is it a HW problem causing a CPU to lockup on an access to the vram ? It's not related to the ps3vram driver, as it happens without, too. With kind regards, Geert Uytterhoeven Software Architect Sony Techsoft Centre Europe The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453 Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/ A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V. VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Well, at the time of the sample, the other CPU indeed -seems- to be in
an IRQ disabled section yes.
This is not really a sample. The hardirqs enable/disable is actually tracked
using the TRACE_{EN,DIS}ABLE_INTS macros.
That's what I meant. IE. the hardirq state was updated by the stuck CPU
but sampled by the non-stuck one. ie. the non-stuck one could have
sampled a transcient value where it happened to have hard irq
disabled...
These states are per_cpu.
Aha, none of the PPC interrupt handlers actually us TRACE_ENABLE_INTS (they
do
use TRACE_DISABLE_INTS). So that's why it thinks decrementer_common disabled
interrupts, without enabling them again...
Well, they aren't supposed to enable IRQs if they were disabled...
They do call TRACE_DISABLE_INTS, which records the interrupt being disabled.
So this makes the actual state recording useless...
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony Techsoft Centre Europe
The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453
Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
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): [c0007c1c]
restore+0x1c/0xe4
| hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [c0003600]
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.
This is not really a sample. The hardirqs enable/disable is actually tracked
using the TRACE_{EN,DIS}ABLE_INTS macros.
For the decrementer, the interrupt code is generated by the
STD_EXCEPTION_COMMON_LITE() macro.
Aha, none of the PPC interrupt handlers actually us TRACE_ENABLE_INTS (they do
use TRACE_DISABLE_INTS). So that's why it thinks decrementer_common disabled
interrupts, without enabling them again...
With kind regards,
Geert Uytterhoeven
Software Architect
Sony Techsoft Centre Europe
The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium
Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453
Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/
A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V.
VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels
Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 13:46 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Well, at the time of the sample, the other CPU indeed -seems- to be in
an IRQ disabled section yes.
This is not really a sample. The hardirqs enable/disable is actually
tracked
using the TRACE_{EN,DIS}ABLE_INTS macros.
That's what I meant. IE. the hardirq state was updated by the stuck CPU
but sampled by the non-stuck one. ie. the non-stuck one could have
sampled a transcient value where it happened to have hard irq
disabled...
These states are per_cpu.
I know, but that doesn't prevent another CPU from peeking at them :-)
The question is, was the message printed by the CPU that locked up or by
the other one that detected the lockup ?
They do call TRACE_DISABLE_INTS, which records the interrupt being disabled.
So this makes the actual state recording useless...
Well, they record that when they disable it. They don't enable it. Can
you find a spot where the IRQ is enabled and it's not recorded or a case
where it's not disabled and recorded as disabled ?
Cheers,
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 14:05 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: I guess it's auto-enabled when the decrementer interrupt handler exits? So shouldn't there be a `bl trace_hardirqs_on' somewhere? The interrupts are restored to their previous state on exit of interrupts via the TRACE_AND_RESTORE_IRQ() macro which is called from entry_64.S in the main restore path and in head_64.S in the fast path and hashing faults. Cheers, Ben. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Aaron Tokhy wrote: I recently built 2.6.27 with these patches on my PS3. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/geoff/cell/ps3-linux-patches/ps3-wip/ps3vram-driver.patch http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/geoff/cell/ps3-linux-patches/ps3-wip/ps3vram-proc-fs.patch These patches enable the 'ps3vram' module, which creates a MTD node Now I am not sure if the patch is the issue. None of the functions in No, we've seen similar things happen without ps3vram, too. BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 61s! [top:22788] Modules linked in: evdev hci_usb usbhid bluetooth usb_storage snd_ps3 ehci_hcd snd_pcm ohci_hcd snd_page_alloc snd_timer usbcore snd sg ps3_lpm soundcore irq event stamp: 5018780 hardirqs last enabled at (5018779): [c0007c1c] restore+0x1c/0xe4 hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [c0003600] decrementer_common+0x100/0x180 softirqs last enabled at (5018778): [c0020928] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24 softirqs last disabled at (5018773): [c0020928] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24 NIP: c0084110 LR: c0084468 CTR: c03181d0 REGS: c6f37280 TRAP: 0901 Not tainted (2.6.27) MSR: 80008032 EE,IR,DR CR: 42004424 XER: TASK = c798[22788] 'top' THREAD: c6f34000 CPU: 0 GPR00: 0001 c6f37500 c05543d0 c6f37570 GPR04: c008427c 0001 GPR08: 0830 0001 c0b96874 GPR12: 80008032 c0586300 NIP [c0084110] .csd_flag_wait+0x14/0x1c LR [c0084468] .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 Call Trace: [c6f37500] [c0084468] .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 (unreliable) smp_call_function_single() causes an IPI to be sent to the other CPU thread. However, the IPI never seems to arrive at the other CPU thread, causing the soft lockup message to be printed on the console. If this happens when the BKL is held before sending the IPI, the system will deadlock when the other CPU thread tries to acquire the BKL. In that unfortunate case, you won't see any message on the console of a retail PS3, though. So far we do not know what's the exact cause of the IPI not arriving, hence suggestions are welcome. I've enabled the recently introduced CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_DETECTOR option and got: | 3RCU detected CPU 1 stall (t=4295279718/750 jiffies) | Call Trace: | [c00013e5a940] [c000f314] .show_stack+0x70/0x184 (unreliable) | [c00013e5a9f0] [c009029c] .__rcu_pending+0x9c/0x2b4 | [c00013e5aa90] [c00904ec] .rcu_pending+0x38/0x84 | [c00013e5ab10] [c005d9f0] .update_process_times+0x40/0x8c | [c00013e5aba0] [c0076d4c] .tick_sched_timer+0x154/0x1bc | [c00013e5ac60] [c006e630] .__run_hrtimer+0x8c/0x128 | [c00013e5ad00] [c006f60c] .hrtimer_interrupt+0x10c/0x1c8 | [c00013e5add0] [c001d2d0] .timer_interrupt+0xcc/0x124 | [c00013e5ae80] [c0003614] decrementer_common+0x114/0x180 | --- Exception: 901 at .csd_flag_wait+0x4/0x1c | LR = .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 | [c00013e5b230] [c0082774] .smp_call_function_mask+0xe4/0x240 | [c00013e5b390] [c00566dc] .on_each_cpu+0x24/0x94 | [c00013e5b430] [c00998bc] .drain_all_pages+0x24/0x3c | [c00013e5b4b0] [c0099ba4] .__alloc_pages_internal+0x2d0/0x464 | [c00013e5b5b0] [c00bb158] .cache_alloc_refill+0x340/0x678 | [c00013e5b680] [c00bb574] .__kmalloc+0xe4/0x170 | [c00013e5b720] [c0297e18] .__alloc_skb+0x7c/0x154 | [c00013e5b7c0] [c02923a8] .sock_alloc_send_skb+0xc4/0x2a4 | [c00013e5b8a0] [c030a464] .unix_stream_sendmsg+0x178/0x384 | [c00013e5b990] [c028e234] .sock_aio_write+0xec/0x114 | [c00013e5baa0] [c00bf2dc] .do_sync_readv_writev+0xc8/0x130 | [c00013e5bc30] [c00fefa0] .compat_do_readv_writev+0x1e0/0x33c | [c00013e5bd90] [c00ff184] .compat_sys_writev+0x88/0xbc | [c00013e5be30] [c00074dc] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 which points again to smp_call_function_single... With kind regards, Geert Uytterhoeven Software Architect Sony Techsoft Centre Europe The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453 Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/ A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V. VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
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... It could be something in the ps3vram driver causing the kernel to lockup Now the question is whether the kernel is stuffed with something like a deadlock with interrupts off, or is it a HW problem causing a CPU to lockup on an access to the vram ? I'm afraid only you guys have tools that would allow to debug that sort of problem. Cheers, Ben. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Aaron Tokhy wrote: I recently built 2.6.27 with these patches on my PS3. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/geoff/cell/ps3-linux-patches/ps3-wip/ps3vram-driver.patch http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/geoff/cell/ps3-linux-patches/ps3-wip/ps3vram-proc-fs.patch These patches enable the 'ps3vram' module, which creates a MTD node Now I am not sure if the patch is the issue. None of the functions in No, we've seen similar things happen without ps3vram, too. BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 61s! [top:22788] Modules linked in: evdev hci_usb usbhid bluetooth usb_storage snd_ps3 ehci_hcd snd_pcm ohci_hcd snd_page_alloc snd_timer usbcore snd sg ps3_lpm soundcore irq event stamp: 5018780 hardirqs last enabled at (5018779): [c0007c1c] restore+0x1c/0xe4 hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [c0003600] decrementer_common+0x100/0x180 softirqs last enabled at (5018778): [c0020928] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24 softirqs last disabled at (5018773): [c0020928] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24 NIP: c0084110 LR: c0084468 CTR: c03181d0 REGS: c6f37280 TRAP: 0901 Not tainted (2.6.27) MSR: 80008032 EE,IR,DR CR: 42004424 XER: TASK = c798[22788] 'top' THREAD: c6f34000 CPU: 0 GPR00: 0001 c6f37500 c05543d0 c6f37570 GPR04: c008427c 0001 GPR08: 0830 0001 c0b96874 GPR12: 80008032 c0586300 NIP [c0084110] .csd_flag_wait+0x14/0x1c LR [c0084468] .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 Call Trace: [c6f37500] [c0084468] .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 (unreliable) smp_call_function_single() causes an IPI to be sent to the other CPU thread. However, the IPI never seems to arrive at the other CPU thread, causing the soft lockup message to be printed on the console. If this happens when the BKL is held before sending the IPI, the system will deadlock when the other CPU thread tries to acquire the BKL. In that unfortunate case, you won't see any message on the console of a retail PS3, though. So far we do not know what's the exact cause of the IPI not arriving, hence suggestions are welcome. With kind regards, Geert Uytterhoeven Software Architect Sony Techsoft Centre Europe The Corporate Village · Da Vincilaan 7-D1 · B-1935 Zaventem · Belgium Phone:+32 (0)2 700 8453 Fax: +32 (0)2 700 8622 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.sony-europe.com/ A division of Sony Europe (Belgium) N.V. VAT BE 0413.825.160 · RPR Brussels Fortis · BIC GEBABEBB · IBAN BE41293037680010___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
[PROBLEM] Soft lockup on Linux 2.6.27, 2 patches, Cell/PPC64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I recently built 2.6.27 with these patches on my PS3. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/geoff/cell/ps3-linux-patches/ps3-wip/ps3vram-driver.patch http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/geoff/cell/ps3-linux-patches/ps3-wip/ps3vram-proc-fs.patch These patches enable the 'ps3vram' module, which creates a MTD node /dev/mtdblock0. In addition to the 256 MB of XDR ram used by the system, I can use 245 MB of the video ram as a fast swap (getting a somewhat valuable 60 MB/s read/write speed on a random access device). I was using the mtdblock0 as a swap space when the soft lockup occurred while leaving the `top` program open. Now I am not sure if the patch is the issue. None of the functions in that list are functions in the patch... but this is my first time at debugging a kernel bug, some of the functions have the word 'page' so it might be due to problems occurring while paging to that mtdblock0 device, but surely calls to the functions in that patch would appear. How would I start debugging this? The trace is also available in pastebin: http://pastebin.com/m2ea72e52 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 61s! [top:22788] Modules linked in: evdev hci_usb usbhid bluetooth usb_storage snd_ps3 ehci_hcd snd_pcm ohci_hcd snd_page_alloc snd_timer usbcore snd sg ps3_lpm soundcore irq event stamp: 5018780 hardirqs last enabled at (5018779): [c0007c1c] restore+0x1c/0xe4 hardirqs last disabled at (5018780): [c0003600] decrementer_common+0x100/0x180 softirqs last enabled at (5018778): [c0020928] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24 softirqs last disabled at (5018773): [c0020928] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24 NIP: c0084110 LR: c0084468 CTR: c03181d0 REGS: c6f37280 TRAP: 0901 Not tainted (2.6.27) MSR: 80008032 EE,IR,DR CR: 42004424 XER: TASK = c798[22788] 'top' THREAD: c6f34000 CPU: 0 GPR00: 0001 c6f37500 c05543d0 c6f37570 GPR04: c008427c 0001 GPR08: 0830 0001 c0b96874 GPR12: 80008032 c0586300 NIP [c0084110] .csd_flag_wait+0x14/0x1c LR [c0084468] .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 Call Trace: [c6f37500] [c0084468] .smp_call_function_single+0x13c/0x164 (unreliable) [c6f375c0] [c0084578] .smp_call_function_mask+0xe8/0x244 [c6f37720] [c005809c] .on_each_cpu+0x24/0x9c [c6f377c0] [c009bde4] .drain_all_pages+0x24/0x3c [c6f37840] [c009c0c8] .__alloc_pages_internal+0x2cc/0x464 [c6f37950] [c00c3d54] .__slab_alloc+0x1f8/0x6cc [c6f37a10] [c00c466c] .kmem_cache_alloc+0x74/0x108 [c6f37ab0] [c00cd200] .get_empty_filp+0x98/0x1a0 [c6f37b40] [c00d9fa0] .__path_lookup_intent_open+0x40/0xd0 [c6f37bf0] [c00da294] .do_filp_open+0xc0/0x7f0 [c6f37d80] [c00c9818] .do_sys_open+0x88/0x154 [c6f37e30] [c00076dc] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40 Instruction dump: 2f88 3860fff0 409e000c f88b0008 3860 ebc1fff0 4e800020 7c0004ac 80030020 780907e1 4d820020 7c210b78 7c421378 4be8 4e800020 7c0802a6 - -- - -Thanks Aaron Tokhy -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkjxfeYACgkQO3nEAs/Ru1mjtwCfW25E51GIAY5KOcpJOp2TeUrz hhQAni7m4UM7ojCPnjEsmiAEVxpLoljh =AVql -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
