On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 11:59:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > It could a completely different cause for lockup, but seeing this now
> > has me wondering if perhaps it's something unrelated to the kernel.
> > I have recollection of running late .17rc's for days without incident,
> > and I'm pretty sure .17 was ok too. But a few weeks ago I did upgrade
> > that test box to the Fedora 21 beta. Which means I have a new gcc.
> > I'm not sure I really trust 4.9.1 yet, so maybe I'll see if I can
> > get 4.8 back on there and see if that's any better.
>
> I'm not sure if I should be relieved or horrified.
>
> Horrified, I think.
>
> It really would be a wonderful thing to have some kind of "compiler
> bisection" with mixed object files to see exactly which file it
> miscompiles (and by "miscompiles" it might just be a kernel bug where
> we are missing a barrier or something, and older gcc's just happened
> to not show it - so it could still easily be a kernel problem).
After wasting countless hours rolling back to Fedora 20 and gcc 4.8.1,
I saw the exact same trace on 3.17, so now I don't know what to think.
So it's great that it's not a regression vs .17, but otoh, who knows
how far back this goes. This looks like a nightmarish bisect case, and
I've no idea why it's now happening so often.
I'll give Don's softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace=1 idea a try on 3.18rc5
and see if that shines any more light on this.
Deeply puzzling.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
