On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 02:03:33AM +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> Server is fully redundant now, so i apply patches (but i apply both, probably
> it will make system more reliable somehow) and i enable required debug
> options in kernel. So i will try to catch this bug few more times, proba
Server is fully redundant now, so i apply patches (but i apply both, probably
it will make system more reliable somehow) and i enable required debug
options in kernel. So i will try to catch this bug few more times, probably
if it will generate more detailed info over netconsole it will be usefu
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 12:25:31PM +0200, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> Thanks, i will try it.
> You think lockdep can be buggy?
Just like every code... But the main reason is it has quite meaningful
overhead, so could be right "in production" only after lockups happen.
But if it doesn't report an
Thanks, i will try it.
You think lockdep can be buggy?
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:00:36 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote
> Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote, On 02/13/2008 09:13 AM:
>
> > It is very difficult to reproduce, happened after running about 1month.
No
> > changes done in classes at time of crash.
>
Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote, On 02/13/2008 09:13 AM:
> It is very difficult to reproduce, happened after running about 1month. No
> changes done in classes at time of crash.
>
> Kernel 2.6.24 vanilla
Hi,
I could be wrong, but IMHO this looks like stack was overridden here,
so my proposal is to
On 13-02-2008 09:13, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
> It is very difficult to reproduce, happened after running about 1month. No
> changes done in classes at time of crash.
>
> Kernel 2.6.24 vanilla
>
> I will try to attach also .config
>
Hi Denys,
This report looks very interesting. I don't kno
