From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754341AbZA2VQD (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:16:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758432AbZA2VPq (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:15:46 -0500 Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]:48111 "EHLO acsinet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758393AbZA2VPp (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:15:45 -0500 Message-ID: <49821C68.4000502@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:15:20 -0800 From: Randy Dunlap Organization: Oracle Linux Engineering User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "kexec@lists.infradead.org" , "arjan@infradead.org" , Dave Kleikamp Subject: boot hang: async vs. kexec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsmt706.oracle.com [141.146.40.84] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010203.49821C6C.01CA:SCFSTAT928724,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I (try to) do daily build/boot testing. The newly built kernel is booted via kexec. This was working until sometime between 2.6.28 and 2.6.29-rc1, so I bisected it.* git bisect blames this commit: 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634 is first bad commit commit 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634 Author: Dave Kleikamp Date: Thu Jan 8 09:46:31 2009 -0600 async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while holding sb_lock sync_filesystems() shouldn't be calling async_synchronize_full_special while holding a spinlock. The second while loop in that function is the right place for this anyway. The new/kexec-loaded kernel hangs during initcalls. The last one that I can see (via netconsole, might miss a few of the very last lines) is: calling net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d @ 1 net_namespace: 1008 bytes initcall net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d returned 0 after 0 usecs Any ideas/suggestions? Thanks. *caveat: This was all done with the "don't use gcc 4.1.[01] because it miscompiles __weak" patch reverted. Could that be an issue/problem here? (I'm using gcc 4.1.1.) -- ~Randy