From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752029AbXCDXdL (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:33:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750874AbXCDXdL (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:33:11 -0500 Received: from hot.fatooh.org ([63.99.9.127]:55277 "EHLO hot.fatooh.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752029AbXCDXdK (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:33:10 -0500 Message-ID: <45EB5733.9080604@fatooh.org> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:33:07 -0800 From: Corey Hickey User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nix CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CONFIG_PREEMPT -> crash under load in 2.6.20? References: <87d53qxbzi.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <45EB1C44.1000702@fatooh.org> <871wk41uiq.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> In-Reply-To: <871wk41uiq.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nix wrote: >>> I can't tell if magic sysrq dies, because as far as I know there's no >>> way to get magic sysrq to do much visible when you're in X, and I can't >>> get anything to go over the network kernel syslog because the network is >>> dead. >> You should still be able to use SysRQ even in X. I tested right now. >> 1. Have X running already and then start X in another VT >> $ X :2 vt10 >> 2. Hit Alt+SysRQ+K >> ---> X dies, display gets corrupted, and keyboard input ignored >> 3. ssh in from another machine and switch back to the running X instance >> # chvt 7 > > The network's dead; that's impossible. I'm sorry, you misunderstand: I meant the above steps as a method of confirming that SysRQ normally still works while X is running, not as anything useful to do after your system has hung. Now that I re-read what you wrote initially, however, I think I somewhat misunderstood what you wrote anyway, and you probably already knew that SyrRQ worked in X. Anyway... > 22:58:47 up 10 days, 22:20, 37 users, load average: 12.71, 11.14, 18.22 > > No problems, and I've been loading the system really rather hard today > (as that line makes clear). I think the problem I'm seeing really *is* > tied to _PREEMPT. Yeah, that's pretty indicative. As for me, I just tried disabling CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE; so far so good, but I don't even have 4 hours uptime yet. We'll see. >> It might be helpful if you reported your hardware information; I'd be >> interested in seeing if there's much in common with my own machine. > > Athlon 4 (UP), 768Mb RAM. No ACPI (to rule out a large nasty spot as > soon as possible). Random info starting with loaded modules: [info cut] Nothing really in common with mine. Oh well. -Corey