From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Oops/Warning report of the week of July 4th 2008 Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 08:39:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20080705063917.GA11599@elte.hu> References: <486EA0D6.2040504@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , NetDev , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Dave Jones To: Arjan van de Ven Return-path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:50668 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750881AbYGEGjl (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jul 2008 02:39:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <486EA0D6.2040504@linux.intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Rank 8: tick_broadcast_oneshot_control (softlockup) > Reported 91 times (634 total reports) > > Some interaction between tickless and systems with an AMD CPU > and an ATI chipset (eg only seen on systems that both have an > AMD cpu and an ATI chipset) Current suspicion is some kind of > time-warp problem that causes the softlockup code to trigger > incorrectly > > This softlockup was last seen in version 2.6.25.9, > and first seen in 2.6.24-rc4. More info: > > http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek.php?search=tick_broadcast_oneshot_control ok, so it's a false positive due to bad timer readout, not a real lockup. That probably also explains how it was able to show up in such numbers - the system kept functioning just fine so every system that produced this warning was able to report it to kerneloops.org. i'll think about extending the softlockup code with time warp detection and reporting - that would be a useful facility in itself as right now there's nothing that warns about time warps in monotonic system time. Ingo