Re: [stable] 2.6.32.21 - uptime related crashes?

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 05:02:32PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:02:23PM -0800, john stultz wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 15:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:25:45AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:44:30PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > > > > The softlockup false positive issue should have been fixed by Peter's
> > > > > "x86, intel: Don't mark sched_clock() as stable" below. But I'm not
> > > > > seeing it upstream.  Peter, is this still the right fix?
> > > > 
> > > > I've not seen any other one proposed, and both you and Peter appeared
> > > > to like it. I understood that Ingo was waiting for the merge window to
> > > > submit it and I think that it simply got lost.
> > > > 
> > > > Ingo, can you confirm ?
> > > 
> > > I'm totally confused here, what's the status of this, and what exactly
> > > is the patch?
> > 
> > Ingo has the fix from Salman queued in -tip, but I'm not sure why its
> > not been pushed to Linus yet.
> > 
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git;a=commit;h=4cecf6d401a01d054afc1e5f605bcbfe553cb9b9
> 
> Wonderful, thanks for pointing this out to me.
>
> Ingo, any idea when this will go to Linus's tree?

Yes please Ingo, do not delay it any further, this is becoming a real
problem, there are people who monitor their uptime to plan a reboot
before 200 days. We shouldn't need to wait for the next merge window,
the patch is already 15 days old and is a fix for a real-world stability
issue !

Thanks,
Willy