Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

s > > suspected but not proven? > > > > I started a loop for test, doing cat /proc/net/dev in a loop and at > the > > same link link up and down from console, but up and down is slow > process > > and the loop did not seem to tri

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

> > > I started a loop for test, doing cat /proc/net/dev in a loop and at > the > > same link link up and down from console, but up and down is slow > process > > and the loop did not seem to trigger the warning over night, so it was >

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

but up and down is slow process > and the loop did not seem to trigger the warning over night, so it was > not so simple. > I am busy with other priority tasks. One of my colleague Deepak will work this with you. I added him to CC list. Thanks. > >> > > [ 83.716570] BUG: spinlock

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

ss > and the loop did not seem to trigger the warning over night, so it was > not so simple. > I am busy with other priority tasks. One of my colleague Deepak will work this with you. I added him to CC list. Thanks. > >> > > [ 83.716570] BUG: spinlock lockup

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

], EEE[0]) >>> > > [ 75.184551] tg3 :00:02.1 eth1: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] >>> > > ASF[0] TSOcap[1] >>> > > [ 75.184557] tg3 :00:02.1 eth1: dma_rwctrl[763f] >>> > > dma_mask[32-bit] >>> > > [ 75.1

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

57] tg3 :00:02.1 eth1: dma_rwctrl[763f] >>> > > dma_mask[32-bit] >>> > > [ 75.184708] PCI: Enabling device: (0003:00:02.0), cmd 2 >>> > > [ 75.375322] tg3 0003:00:02.0 (unnamed net_device) (uninitialized): >>> > > Cannot ge

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

iled >> > > [ 75.714681] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: Tigon3 [partno(none) rev 2003] >> > > (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) MAC address 00:03:ba:0a:f3:87 >> > > [ 75.714688] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: attached PHY is 5704 >> > > (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (Wi

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

gt; [ 75.375322] tg3 0003:00:02.0 (unnamed net_device) (uninitialized): >> > > Cannot get nvram lock, tg3_nvram_init failed >> > > [ 75.714681] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: Tigon3 [partno(none) rev 2003] >> > > (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) MAC address 00:

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

) MAC address 00:03:ba:0a:f3:87 > > > [ 75.714688] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: attached PHY is 5704 > > > (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) > > > [ 75.714694] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] > > > ASF[0] TSOcap[1] > >

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

0Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) > > > [ 75.714694] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] > > > ASF[0] TSOcap[1] > > > [ 75.714699] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: dma_rwctrl[763f] > > > dma_mask[32-bit] > > > [ 75.714819] PCI: Enab

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Meelis Roos wrote: > >> That did not go well - bisect found the following commit but that does > >> not seem to be related at all. So probably the reproducibility is not > >> 100% but more random. > > > > Now I reproduced the bug even with

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Meelis Roos wrote: > >> That did not go well - bisect found the following commit but that does > >> not seem to be related at all. So probably the reproducibility is not > >> 100% but more random. > > > > Now I reproduced the bug even with 4.7-rc1 so it is older

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

ap[1] >> > [ 75.714699] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: dma_rwctrl[763f] dma_mask[32-bit] >> > [ 75.714819] PCI: Enabling device: (0003:00:02.1), cmd 2 >> > [ 75.905278] tg3 0003:00:02.1 (unnamed net_device) (uninitialized): >> > Cannot get nvram lock, tg3_nvram_init fa

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

thernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) >> > [ 75.714694] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] >> > ASF[0] TSOcap[1] >> > [ 75.714699] tg3 0003:00:02.0 eth2: dma_rwctrl[763f] dma_mask[32-bit] >> > [ 75.714819] PCI: Enabling device: (0003:00:02.

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

> [ 76.244470] tg3 0003:00:02.1 eth3: Tigon3 [partno(none) rev 2003] > > (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) MAC address 00:03:ba:0a:f3:88 > > [ 76.244477] tg3 0003:00:02.1 eth3: attached PHY is 5704 > > (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) > > [ 76.244482] tg3 0003:00:0

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

3:00:02.1), cmd 2 > > [ 75.905278] tg3 0003:00:02.1 (unnamed net_device) (uninitialized): > > Cannot get nvram lock, tg3_nvram_init failed > > [ 76.244470] tg3 0003:00:02.1 eth3: Tigon3 [partno(none) rev 2003] > > (PCI:66MHz:64-bit) MAC address 00:03:ba:0a:f3:88 >

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

ched PHY is 5704 (10/100/1000Base-T > Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) > [ 76.244482] tg3 0003:00:02.1 eth3: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] > ASF[0] TSOcap[1] > [ 76.244488] tg3 0003:00:02.1 eth3: dma_rwctrl[763f] dma_mask[32-bit] > [ 83.643317] tg3 :00:02.0 eth0

Re: tg3 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

G[0] MIirq[0] > ASF[0] TSOcap[1] > [ 76.244488] tg3 0003:00:02.1 eth3: dma_rwctrl[763f] dma_mask[32-bit] > [ 83.643317] tg3 :00:02.0 eth0: No firmware running > [...] > [ 83.716570] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, dhclient/1014 > [ 83.797819] lock: 0xfff

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On 05/30/2014 01:24 PM, Jan Kara wrote: > Now with the attachment... :) Jan, I suspect that the issue Jet has reported is different from mine. Your patch (or even removing all of print_PIC() didn't solve the issue I've reported. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

Now with the attachment... :) On Fri 30-05-14 19:23:27, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 30-05-14 18:58:10, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Fri 30-05-14 18:19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri 30-05-14 18:58:10, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 30-05-14 18:19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > [7.492350]

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri 30-05-14 18:19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > [7.492350] == > > > > [7.492350] [ INFO: possible

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > [7.492350] == > > > [7.492350] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > > > [7.492350]

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > [7.492350] == > > [7.492350] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > > [7.492350] 3.15.0-rc5-00567-gbafe980 #1 Not tainted > > [7.492350]

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: [7.492350] == [7.492350] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [7.492350] 3.15.0-rc5-00567-gbafe980 #1 Not tainted [7.492350]

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: [7.492350] == [7.492350] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [7.492350]

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri 30-05-14 18:19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: [7.492350] == [7.492350] [ INFO: possible circular

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On Fri 30-05-14 18:58:10, Jan Kara wrote: On Fri 30-05-14 18:19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: [7.492350] ==

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

Now with the attachment... :) On Fri 30-05-14 19:23:27, Jan Kara wrote: On Fri 30-05-14 18:58:10, Jan Kara wrote: On Fri 30-05-14 18:19:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:50:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

Re: [prink] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1

On 05/30/2014 01:24 PM, Jan Kara wrote: Now with the attachment... :) Jan, I suspect that the issue Jet has reported is different from mine. Your patch (or even removing all of print_PIC() didn't solve the issue I've reported. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

Dear Will, Thanks for your input. We debug by adding print as below and found very big value difference between next and owner(more then 1000). So it seams memory corruption. linux/lib/spinlock_debug.c msg, raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm,

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

Dear Will, Thanks for your input. We debug by adding print as below and found very big value difference between next and owner(more then 1000). So it seams memory corruption. linux/lib/spinlock_debug.c msg, raw_smp_processor_id(), current-comm,

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:37:31AM +, naveen yadav wrote: > Thanks for your reply, > > We are using Cortex A15. > yes, this is with ticket lock. > > We will check value of arch_spinlock_t and share it. It is bit > difficult to reproduce this scenario. > > If you have some idea ,please

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 06:37:31AM +, naveen yadav wrote: Thanks for your reply, We are using Cortex A15. yes, this is with ticket lock. We will check value of arch_spinlock_t and share it. It is bit difficult to reproduce this scenario. If you have some idea ,please suggest how

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

, Will Deacon wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:25:51AM +, naveen yadav wrote: >> We are using 3.8.x kernel on ARM, We are facing soft lockup issue. >> Following are the logs. > > Which CPU/SoC are you using? > >> BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, pr

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:25:51AM +, naveen yadav wrote: > We are using 3.8.x kernel on ARM, We are facing soft lockup issue. > Following are the logs. Which CPU/SoC are you using? > BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, process1/525 > lock: 0xd8ac9a64, .magic: dead4ead,

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:25:51AM +, naveen yadav wrote: We are using 3.8.x kernel on ARM, We are facing soft lockup issue. Following are the logs. Which CPU/SoC are you using? BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, process1/525 lock

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:25:51AM +, naveen yadav wrote: We are using 3.8.x kernel on ARM, We are facing soft lockup issue. Following are the logs. Which CPU/SoC are you using? BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, process1/525 lock: 0xd8ac9a64, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: none/-1

BUG: spinlock lockup

Dear All, We are using 3.8.x kernel on ARM, We are facing soft lockup issue. Following are the logs. BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, process1/525 lock: 0xd8ac9a64, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: /-1, .owner_cpu: -1 1 . Looks like lock is available as owner is -1, why arch_spin_trylock

BUG: spinlock lockup

Dear All, We are using 3.8.x kernel on ARM, We are facing soft lockup issue. Following are the logs. BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, process1/525 lock: 0xd8ac9a64, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: none/-1, .owner_cpu: -1 1 . Looks like lock is available as owner is -1, why arch_spin_trylock

Re: [drm] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/0/1

Hi On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi David, > > I'm not sure if this is a good bisect because the errors are noisy, > however it's good to inform you of this possibility. > > First bad commit may be a3483353c ("drm: check for !kdev in > drm_unplug_minor()") To be

Re: [drm] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/0/1

Hi On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote: Hi David, I'm not sure if this is a good bisect because the errors are noisy, however it's good to inform you of this possibility. First bad commit may be a3483353c (drm: check for !kdev in drm_unplug_minor())

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, flush-ubifs_0_0/844

On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 15:08 +0100, Mark Jackson wrote: > I've encountered a lockup on ubifs ... any ideas ? > > # ifup eth1 > [ 3451.254040] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual > address > [ 3451.262627] pgd = cf468000 > [ 3451.265489] [] *pgd=8f48c831,

Re: BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, flush-ubifs_0_0/844

On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 15:08 +0100, Mark Jackson wrote: I've encountered a lockup on ubifs ... any ideas ? # ifup eth1 [ 3451.254040] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address [ 3451.262627] pgd = cf468000 [ 3451.265489] [] *pgd=8f48c831,

BUG: spinlock lockup, async_umap_flush_lock in 3.4, 3.7, 3.8

I've got several systems with similar hardware which crash with BUG: spinlock errors on async_umap_flush_lock such as: BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, sh/1166 lock: async_umap_flush_lock+0x0/0x20, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/23/0, .owner_cpu: 23 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

BUG: spinlock lockup, async_umap_flush_lock in 3.4, 3.7, 3.8

I've got several systems with similar hardware which crash with BUG: spinlock errors on async_umap_flush_lock such as: BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, sh/1166 lock: async_umap_flush_lock+0x0/0x20, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/23/0, .owner_cpu: 23 BUG: spinlock lockup suspected

BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, flush-ubifs_0_0/844

496127] [] (pagevec_lru_move_fn+0x90/0xe4) from [] (0xcf481808) [ 3485.901588] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, flush-ubifs_0_0/844 [ 3485.908722] lock: contig_page_data+0x214/0x9c4, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: sh/913, .owner_cpu: 0 [ 3485.918048] [] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x138) from [] (do_raw_spi

BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, flush-ubifs_0_0/844

] [c00a00b8] (pagevec_lru_move_fn+0x90/0xe4) from [cf481808] (0xcf481808) [ 3485.901588] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, flush-ubifs_0_0/844 [ 3485.908722] lock: contig_page_data+0x214/0x9c4, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: sh/913, .owner_cpu: 0 [ 3485.918048] [c0019c5c] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x138

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/15/2008 10:03 PM: ... > ...On the other hand this: > >> Feb 15 15:50:17 217.151.X.X [1521315.068984] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, >> ksoftirqd/1/7, f0551180 > > seems to point just at spinlock lockup, so it's more about the full report.

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

u could try with some other debugging options? E.g. since lockdep > doesn't help - turn this off. Instead try some others, like these: ...On the other hand this: > Feb 15 15:50:17 217.151.X.X [1521315.068984] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, > ksoftirqd/1/7, f0551180 seems to point just at

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote, On 02/15/2008 08:42 PM: ... > I have similar crashes on completely different hardware with same job (QOS), > so i think it is actually some nasty bug in networking. Maybe you could try with some other debugging options? E.g. since lockdep doesn't help - turn this

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

This server was working fine under load under FreeBSD, and worked fine before with other tasks under Linux. I dont think it is RAM. Additionally it is server hardware (Dell PowerEdge) with ECC, MCE and other layers, who will report about any hardware issue most probably, and i think even better

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

2008/2/15 Denys Fedoryshchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I have random crashes, at least once per week. It is very difficult to catch > error message, and only recently i setup netconsole. Now i got crash, but > there is no traceback and only single line came over netconsole, mentioned > before.

BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

Server crashed(not responding over network), last line over netconsole was Feb 15 15:50:17 217.151.X.X [1521315.068984] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, ksoftirqd/1/7, f0551180 I have random crashes, at least once per week. It is very difficult to catch error message, and only recently i setup

BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

Server crashed(not responding over network), last line over netconsole was Feb 15 15:50:17 217.151.X.X [1521315.068984] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, ksoftirqd/1/7, f0551180 I have random crashes, at least once per week. It is very difficult to catch error message, and only recently i setup

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

2008/2/15 Denys Fedoryshchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have random crashes, at least once per week. It is very difficult to catch error message, and only recently i setup netconsole. Now i got crash, but there is no traceback and only single line came over netconsole, mentioned before. Did

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

options? E.g. since lockdep doesn't help - turn this off. Instead try some others, like these: ...On the other hand this: Feb 15 15:50:17 217.151.X.X [1521315.068984] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, ksoftirqd/1/7, f0551180 seems to point just at spinlock lockup, so it's more about the full report

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote, On 02/15/2008 08:42 PM: ... I have similar crashes on completely different hardware with same job (QOS), so i think it is actually some nasty bug in networking. Maybe you could try with some other debugging options? E.g. since lockdep doesn't help - turn this off.

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 02/15/2008 10:03 PM: ... ...On the other hand this: Feb 15 15:50:17 217.151.X.X [1521315.068984] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, ksoftirqd/1/7, f0551180 seems to point just at spinlock lockup, so it's more about the full report. I wonder if this patch to prink

Re: BUG/ spinlock lockup, 2.6.24

This server was working fine under load under FreeBSD, and worked fine before with other tasks under Linux. I dont think it is RAM. Additionally it is server hardware (Dell PowerEdge) with ECC, MCE and other layers, who will report about any hardware issue most probably, and i think even better