On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 20:25 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> I've seen it a few times, always with the soft lockup trace.
> >
> > I bet it's because you have tons of modules, and t
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
>>
>> I've seen it a few times, always with the soft lockup trace.
>
> I bet it's because you have tons of modules, and the line ends up
> being *really* long. And overflows LOG_LINE_MAX. I
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> I've seen it a few times, always with the soft lockup trace.
I bet it's because you have tons of modules, and the line ends up
being *really* long. And overflows LOG_LINE_MAX. I suspect something
odd happens.
There are tons of odd special ca
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:47:57PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > Also, I have no idea how the hell the 'Modules linked in:' line (9th
> > line) ended up being printed /after/ the
> > > > module listing began (2nd line).
>
> They do not belong together. The second line is just another
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:48:51PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >
> > > > It looks fine here with the above mentioned
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 03:52:17PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:48:51PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > > It looks fine here with the above mentioned patch:
> >
> > Now that that patch is in Linus tree, I've h
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:48:51PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > It looks fine here with the above mentioned patch:
>
> Now that that patch is in Linus tree, I've hit what's probably a different
> case.
> Look at the modules list in this oops
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:48:51PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > I noticed that the format of the oom-killer output seems to have
> > > changed, and
> > > now it spews stuff like..
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 08:11:45PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:56:31PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > That single patch doesn't apply cleanly to Linus'
> > > > > 8c84bf4166a4698296342841a549bbee03860ac0
> > > > >
> > > > > What else is necessary?
> > > >
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:56:31PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > That single patch doesn't apply cleanly to Linus'
> > > > 8c84bf4166a4698296342841a549bbee03860ac0
> > > >
> > > > What else is necessary?
> > > >
> > > > Your tree seems to have a collection of random patches.
> >
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 22:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> >> > That single patch doesn't apply cleanly to Linus'
> >> > 8c84bf4166a4698296342841a549bbee03860ac0
> >> >
> >> > What else is necessary?
> >> >
> >> > Your tree seems to have a coll
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:44:24PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 13:40 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Si
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > That single patch doesn't apply cleanly to Linus'
>> > 8c84bf4166a4698296342841a549bbee03860ac0
>> >
>> > What else is necessary?
>> >
>> > Your tree seems to have a collection of random patches.
>> >
>> > It might be useful to clone Linus'
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 13:40 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrot
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 01:31:56PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > I noticed that the format of the oom-killer output seems to
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > I noticed that the format of the oom-killer output seems to have changed,
> > > and
> > > now it spews stuff like..
> > >
> > >
On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 20:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I noticed that the format of the oom-killer output seems to have changed,
> > and
> > now it spews stuff like..
> >
> > [49461.758070] lowmem_reserve[]:
> > [49461.758071] 0
> > [49461.7
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> I noticed that the format of the oom-killer output seems to have changed, and
> now it spews stuff like..
>
> [49461.758070] lowmem_reserve[]:
> [49461.758071] 0
> [49461.758071] 2643
> [49461.758071] 3878
> [49461.758072] 3878
> [49461.75807
18 matches
Mail list logo
