Re: netconsole still hangs

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:09:26 -0700 Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:59:01 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:10:53 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:57:17 -0700
> > > 
> > > > I reran the test on 2.6.24 and all seemed fine: the machine didn't hang and
> > > > stopping the script stopped the netconsole output.
> > > 
> > > Can you go back and bisect the tree in one shot to the guilty
> > > commit you found last time, and make sure this test case
> > > works at that point?
> > 
> > Plain old
> > 
> > git-checkout 33f807ba0d9259e7c75c7a2ce8bd2787e5b540c7 seems to dtrt.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > git-checkout 33f807ba0d9259e7c75c7a2ce8bd2787e5b540c7
> > 
> >   Fails very very easily.  Basically the machine never successfully boots.
> > 
> > 
> > git-checkout 0953864160bdd28dfe45fd46fa462b4d2d53cb96
> > 
> >   Works OK.
> > 
> > 
> > So yes, I'd say that the revert was not complete.
> > 
> > 
> > aside: running that while loop just slays the machine.  It took 30 seocnds
> > to respond to ^C (across ssh over the same link).  There's some severe
> > starvation happening somewhere.
> 
> 
> The other possible candidates for this are:
> 
> commit 0953864160bdd28dfe45fd46fa462b4d2d53cb96
> Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
> Date:   Mon Nov 19 19:23:29 2007 -0800
> 
>     [NETPOLL]: no need to store local_mac
> 
> commit 5106930bd6b57402205e3de54dae9476e215b622
> Author: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@linux-foundation.org>
> Date:   Mon Nov 19 19:18:11 2007 -0800
> 
>     [NETPOLL]: netpoll_poll() cleanup

Both of those were present in the tree whihc resulted from

	git-checkout 0953864160bdd28dfe45fd46fa462b4d2d53cb96

and that tree passed testing.

> What hardware is the problem seen on? Perhaps there is something different
> to look for?

8-way x86_64 with e1000E
2-way x86_64 with e1000E

I previously saw problems with 1-way i386 and a 2-way i386 both with e100
but I haven't retested those since David's revert.

Are the problems not reproducible on your test machines?