From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756076Ab1ALMEA (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:04:00 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:57836 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755841Ab1ALMD6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:03:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:03:49 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, Nick Piggin , Soren Sandmann , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Arjan van de Ven , Frederic Weisbecker , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock recursion (sys_chdir, user_path_at, do_path_lookup ...) Message-ID: <20110112120349.GH24920@pengutronix.de> References: <20110111110539.GP24920@pengutronix.de> <20110112075229.GZ24920@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:57:50AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > [ 75.280000] r5:be961ee4 r4:00063015 > > > > > > I started to bisect, but already the first test case showed a different > > > error (my getty dying every few seconds). > > I bisected this one now, the first bad commit is > > > > 9c0729d (x86: Eliminate bp argument from the stack tracing routines) > > > > . It made a x86 specific change to include/linux/stacktrace.h. > > As I said on IRC already, that's complete nonsense. The commit changes > a function prototype which is only relevant for x86. So how should > that affect ARM ? hmm, the conversion that you probably mean is: 22:26 < ukleinek> hmm, 9c0729dc8062bed96189bd14ac6d4920f3958743 is the first bad commit 22:26 < tglx> lol 22:26 * ukleinek goes to bed 22:27 < ukleinek> then it can only be about include/linux/stacktrace.h 22:27 * ukleinek goes to bed anyhow 22:28 < rostedt> ukleinek: btw, you could do the bisect automated with ktest.pl :-) 22:30 < tglx> ukleinek: right, a change to include/linux/stacktrace.h which is x86 specific 22:33 < tglx> makes arm explode 22:33 < tglx> rotfl I admit I didn't look what was changed there and I understood your statement as "the change to include/linux/stacktrace.h was x86 specific and so broke ARM". I will look into it again after lunch. > > According to tglx the lockup above "is related to nicks scalability > > stuff". I havn't researched yet the offending commit. Is that > > necessary? > > Only if you are interested that the problem gets fixed. OK, will do. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |