From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Soft-Lockup/Race in networking in 2.6.31-rc1+195 (
	possibly?caused by netem)
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:13:44 +0200
Message-ID: <20090708091344.GD3148@ami.dom.local>
References: <200907031326.21822.andres@anarazel.de> <200907071811.27570.andres@anarazel.de> <20090708080852.GC3148@ami.dom.local> <200907081029.34527.andres@anarazel.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Joao Correia <joaomiguelcorreia@gmail.com>,
	Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-bw0-f225.google.com ([209.85.218.225]:56762 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f225.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752416AbZGHJOU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:14:20 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200907081029.34527.andres@anarazel.de>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 10:29:34AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 July 2009 10:08:52 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 06:11:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 July 2009 15:57:42 Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:34:07PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > Testing wether its triggerable inside a vm might be interesting...
> > > >
> > > > Probably similarly to testing without this patch or even less. Maybe
> > > > I should've warned you but this type of bugs in -rc with possible
> > > > memory or stack overwrites might be fatal for your data (at least).
> > >
> > > Fortunately all the data on that machine should either be replaceable or
> > > regularly backuped.
> > >
> > > Will test later today if that patch bugs.
> >
> > If you didn't start yet, it would be nice to use this, btw:
> >
> > CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU = N
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS = Y
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_TIMERS = Y
> So I should test with a single cpu? Or is there a config where HOTPLUG_CPU does 
> not imply !SMP?

No, my single cpu should be enough ;-) There is something wrong I guess.
I can see in my menuconfig:

SMP [=y]
...
HOTPLUG [=n]
...
HOTPUG_CPU [=y]
...
Depends on SMP && HOTPLUG

So, let it be HOTPLUG_CPU = Y for now...

Jarek P.