From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Abdul Haleem Subject: Re: [DLPAR CPU][Oops] Bad kernel stack pointer Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:27:04 +0530 Message-ID: <1506074224.17232.8.camel@abdul.in.ibm.com> References: <1505729319.6990.5.camel@abdul.in.ibm.com> <878th9lhpe.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:58488 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751826AbdIVJ5O (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:57:14 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v8M9ujJB021410 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:57:14 -0400 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2d4ynpa96g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 05:57:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 03:57:13 -0600 In-Reply-To: <878th9lhpe.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michael Ellerman Cc: linuxppc-dev , linux-kernel , linux-next , Stephen Rothwell , Rob Herring , Paul Mackerras On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 21:42 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Abdul Haleem writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Dynamic CPU remove operation resulted in Kernel Panic on today's > > next-20170915 kernel. > > > > Machine Type: Power 7 PowerVM LPAR > > Kernel : 4.13.0-next-20170915 > > config : attached > > test: DLPAR CPU remove > > > > > > dmesg logs: > > ---------- > > cpu 37 (hwid 37) Ready to die... > > cpu 38 (hwid 38) Ready to die... > > cpu 39 (hwid 39) > > ******* RTAS CReady to die... > > ALL BUFFER CORRUPTION ******* > > Cool. Does that come from RTAS itself? I have never seen that happen > before. Not sure, the var logs does not have any messages captured. This is first time we hit this type of issue. > > Is this easily reproducible? I am unable to reproduce it again. I will keep an eye on our CI runs for few more runs. -- Regard's Abdul Haleem IBM Linux Technology Centre