From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S263204AbUHJJAd@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S263204AbUHJJAd (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:00:33 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263725AbUHJJAc
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:00:32 -0400
Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:38600 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263640AbUHJI74 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Aug 2004 04:59:56 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:00:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
       Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: 2.6.8-rc3-mm2
Message-ID: <20040810090051.GA28403@elte.hu>
References: <200408091132.39752.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <200408091217.50786.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> <20040809195323.GU11200@holomorphy.com> <20040809204357.GX11200@holomorphy.com> <20040809211042.GY11200@holomorphy.com> <20040809224546.GZ11200@holomorphy.com> <20040810063445.GE11200@holomorphy.com> <20040810080206.GF11200@holomorphy.com> <20040810083018.GA27270@elte.hu> <20040810085639.GJ11200@holomorphy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040810085639.GJ11200@holomorphy.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73
X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9,
	BAYES_00 -4.90
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:

> > so the same patch but without the printk change still crashes?
> > how about applying only the printk change? (delay effect?)
> 
> Actually, what I just narrowed it down to was *only* the printk change
> fixes it.

when i've seen such things on x86 it was usually some race with
interrupts on the other CPU. Where do all the ia64 interrupts go to
during bootup?

the other possibility is messed up completion logic - some stuff is
still on this CPU's kernel stack and the printk delays its
corruption/destruction.

	Ingo