From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759717Ab3KMS1f (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:27:35 -0500 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:34184 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756951Ab3KMS11 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:27:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:27:21 -0700 From: jerry.hoemann@hp.com To: HATAYAMA Daisuke Cc: hpa@linux.intel.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com, jingbai.ma@hp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] x86, apic, kexec: Add disable_cpu_apic kernel parameter Message-ID: <20131113182721.GB10062@anatevka.fc.hp.com> Reply-To: jerry.hoemann@hp.com References: <20131022150015.24240.39686.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <20131106190232.GA28119@anatevka.fc.hp.com> <528061E5.7010903@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <528061E5.7010903@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 01:49:41PM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: > > Thanks for your testing. > > >I have seen no issues w/ the 3.0.80 dump testing on our proto. > > > >On the 2.6.32 testing on our proto, i have hit a low probability (< 5%) > >chance of the capture suffering a soft lockup hang during > >"Switching to clocksource hpet." I have not RCA'd this yet. > >Note, I have seen this issue on earlier version of the patch, so > >it is not specific to this version. > > > >I then tested the 2.6.32 port on a dl380. This worked without issue. > > > >Note, I have seen no issues related to this patch on our proto when > >booting the capture with a single processor. > > > >While I am still pursuing the issue of the 2.6.32 kernel on our proto, > >I believe this patch is good and should be accepted. > > > > This seems there's something that depends on the system you used. But I > have never verified my patch set on 2.6.32-based kernel. I'll try to > do a similar test on some FJ systems. > > The 2.6.32-based kernel you mean is one of the Longterm release kernels, > right? So, you used on the test the 2.6.32-based Longterm release kernel > with my v4 patch, right? I've been using 2.6.32 and 3.0.80 based kernels from different distros. These are not the same as long term kernels on kernel.org. I see you've posted an updated version of the patch. i've picked it up and will test. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Hoemann Software Engineer Hewlett-Packard/MODL 3404 E Harmony Rd. MS 57 phone: (970) 898-1022 Ft. Collins, CO 80528 FAX: (970) 898-XXXX email: jerry.hoemann@hp.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------