From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1LSgPG-0006id-Un for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:34:49 +0000 Message-ID: <49823D0B.4060503@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:34:35 -0800 From: Randy Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: boot hang: async vs. kexec References: <49821C68.4000502@oracle.com> <1233268080.9299.135.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1233268080.9299.135.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Dave Kleikamp Cc: "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "arjan@infradead.org" Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 13:15 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> I (try to) do daily build/boot testing. The newly built kernel >> is booted via kexec. This was working until sometime between >> 2.6.28 and 2.6.29-rc1, so I bisected it.* >> >> git bisect blames this commit: >> >> 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634 is first bad commit >> commit 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634 >> Author: Dave Kleikamp >> Date: Thu Jan 8 09:46:31 2009 -0600 >> >> async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while holding sb_lock >> >> sync_filesystems() shouldn't be calling async_synchronize_full_special >> while holding a spinlock. The second while loop in that function is the >> right place for this anyway. >> >> >> The new/kexec-loaded kernel hangs during initcalls. The last one that >> I can see (via netconsole, might miss a few of the very last lines) is: >> >> calling net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d @ 1 >> net_namespace: 1008 bytes >> initcall net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d returned 0 after 0 usecs >> >> >> >> Any ideas/suggestions? > > I'm not sure about any limitations of git bisect, but it seems unlikely > to me that sync_filesystems() would be getting called this early. Are > any filesystems even mounted at this point? I don't think so. > Does reverting that commit fix the problem? (I would be surprised, but > stranger things have happened.) I was also skeptical, and reverting it made no difference. >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> *caveat: This was all done with the "don't use gcc 4.1.[01] >> because it miscompiles __weak" patch reverted. Could that >> be an issue/problem here? (I'm using gcc 4.1.1.) > > I have no idea. I am now using gcc 4.1.2 and seeing the same boot hang problem. -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec