Re: kdump regression compared to v2.6.35

CAI Qian
2010-08-29T11:56:57Z

----- caiqian@redhat.com wrote:

> ----- "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 08/29/2010 01:24 PM, CAI Qian wrote:
> > >> On 08/29/2010 09:01 AM, caiqian@redhat.com wrote:
> > >>> Further bisect indicated this bad commit from the merge. Given
> kdump
> > >>> kernel was running with maxcpus=1, I guess this work caused
> > fs/bio.c
> > >>> hung in the workqueue on UP. Reverted the whole merge let kdump
> > work
> > >>> again.
> > >>
> > >> Can you please pull from the following git tree and see whether
> it
> > >> fixes the problem? There was a bug in nr_active accounting.
> > >
> > > It had the same problem.
> >
> > I see. Hmm... a different issue then. Can you please tell me how
> to
> > reproduce the problem?
It is easy to reproduce by passing maxcpus=1 to the first kernel.
> First, to configure kdump - see Documentation/kdump/kdump.txt. It
> might be easier if you are using a distro that provide advanced kdump
> tools. Then, to trigger the kdump - echo c >/proc/sysrq-trigger. In
> case needed, here is the system information,
> # lscpu
> Architecture: x86_64
> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
> CPU(s): 64
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 8
> CPU socket(s): 4
> NUMA node(s): 4
> Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
> CPU family: 6
> Model: 46
> Stepping: 6
> CPU MHz: 1064.000
> Virtualization: VT-x
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> L2 cache: 256K
> L3 cache: 18432K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0,4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60
> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 1,5,9,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41,45,49,53,57,61
> NUMA node2 CPU(s): 2,6,10,14,18,22,26,30,34,38,42,46,50,54,58,62
> NUMA node3 CPU(s): 3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,59,63
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > tejun
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kexec mailing list
> > kexec@lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec