All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: mroos@linux.ee
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU detected CPU 0 stall after panic on sparc64
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:40:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091212.014002.173528710.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.SOC.1.00.0912121049030.26625@math.ut.ee>

From: Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:54:19 +0200 (EET)

> I tried 2.6.32 git gaad3bf0 on a SMP sparc64 machine (Ultra Enterprise 
> 250). For some reason my disks were not found (not important in this 
> bugreport) and this resulted in panic (cannnot mount root). However, the 
> machine kept going and got the below messages (RCU detected CPU 0 stall 
> (t\x1000 jiffies)) from timer interrupts.
> 
> This seems to be like a bug in RCU vs panic.

It's normal actually.  A panic() just loops forever and the cpu never
goes through an RCU grace period again as a result, and this triggers
the debugging timer that detects this condition.

Probably the panic() code should disable that assertion check.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: mroos@linux.ee
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU detected CPU 0 stall after panic on sparc64
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:40:02 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091212.014002.173528710.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.SOC.1.00.0912121049030.26625@math.ut.ee>

From: Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:54:19 +0200 (EET)

> I tried 2.6.32 git gaad3bf0 on a SMP sparc64 machine (Ultra Enterprise 
> 250). For some reason my disks were not found (not important in this 
> bugreport) and this resulted in panic (cannnot mount root). However, the 
> machine kept going and got the below messages (RCU detected CPU 0 stall 
> (t=1000 jiffies)) from timer interrupts.
> 
> This seems to be like a bug in RCU vs panic.

It's normal actually.  A panic() just loops forever and the cpu never
goes through an RCU grace period again as a result, and this triggers
the debugging timer that detects this condition.

Probably the panic() code should disable that assertion check.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-12  9:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-12  8:54 RCU detected CPU 0 stall after panic on sparc64 Meelis Roos
2009-12-12  8:54 ` Meelis Roos
2009-12-12  9:40 ` David Miller [this message]
2009-12-12  9:40   ` David Miller
2009-12-14 20:25   ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-14 20:25     ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-14 21:02     ` David Miller
2009-12-14 21:02       ` David Miller
2009-12-14 23:15       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-12-14 23:15         ` Paul E. McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20091212.014002.173528710.davem@davemloft.net \
    --to=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mroos@linux.ee \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.