From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linas@austin.ibm.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:57:41 -0600 To: Christian Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: ppc32 lockups with 2.6 Message-ID: <20031110175740.A32176@forte.austin.ibm.com> References: <3FA5698A.9000905@g-house.de> <3FAABE62.4090804@g-house.de> <20031110125044.A22030@forte.austin.ibm.com> <3FB01392.60500@g-house.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3FB01392.60500@g-house.de>; from evil@g-house.de on Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:39:14PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:39:14PM +0100, Christian wrote: > linas@austin.ibm.com wrote: > > I'd suggest getting the KDB kernel patches, and then poking around to > > see what the system was doing when it locked up. > > kdb, hm, i'll see if i can handle this. would some output from gdb help too? kdb is a built-in kernel debugger. gdb is useless for this case, although kgdb could be another alternative. > > What were the stack traces? does it always lock up in the same routine? > > the debugger will show, as nothing else showed up and even SysReq was > not working anymore. Hmm, that's bad ... does sysreq work before the lockup? > > What line of code was it > > executiing when it did that? No, I meant in the kernel, the output of the kdb 'bt' command, which shows what the kernel was doing when kdb was entereed. But if sysreq really doesn't work, then theres a chance that kdb won't either, and that means ... hmm... --linas ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/