From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S274987AbTHFJhK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 05:37:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S274989AbTHFJhK (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 05:37:10 -0400 Received: from mail3.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.7]:23511 "HELO heather-ng.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S274987AbTHFJhB (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2003 05:37:01 -0400 X-Sender-Authentification: SMTPafterPOP by from 217.64.64.14 Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:36:58 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Willy Tarreau Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br, andrea@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, green@namesys.com Subject: Re: 2.4.22-pre lockups (now decoded oops for pre10) Message-Id: <20030806113658.7a53731c.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030806090920.GA9492@alpha.home.local> References: <20030802142734.5df93471.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030806094150.4d7b0610.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030806090920.GA9492@alpha.home.local> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:09:20 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:41:50AM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > > Code; c0144b14 <__remove_from_queues+14/30> > > 00000000 <_EIP>: > > Code; c0144b14 <__remove_from_queues+14/30> <===== > > 0: 89 02 mov %eax,(%edx) <===== > > Code; c0144b16 <__remove_from_queues+16/30> > > 2: c7 41 30 00 00 00 00 movl $0x0,0x30(%ecx) > > Code; c0144b1d <__remove_from_queues+1d/30> > > 9: 89 4c 24 04 mov %ecx,0x4(%esp,1) > > Code; c0144b21 <__remove_from_queues+21/30> > > d: e9 7a ff ff ff jmp ffffff8c <_EIP+0xffffff8c> > > Code; c0144b26 <__remove_from_queues+26/30> > > 12: 8d 76 00 lea 0x0(%esi),%esi > > once again, it's *pprev=next which is is causing trouble, with pprev=6 this > time (fs/buffer.c:523). There really seems to be something playing badly with > this... > > I find amazing that such widely used portions of code only trigger panics on > your system ! either it's a rare combinations of several components/drivers, > or a strange hardware problem, although I can't imagine which (cpu? bus > locking?). Hm, the hardware may not be that widespread. I guess not many people are really using SMP, 64 bit PCI network, 3 GB RAM, 3ware RAID5 and serverworks board altogether in one box. I can't fight the impression it has something to do with locking issues. It doesn't look exactly like a hardware problem, you would not expect crashes on the same type of code then. The question is: what additional information is needed to find the underlying problem? Regards, Stephan