boot hang: async vs. kexec
Dave Kleikamp
shaggy at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Jan 29 17:28:00 EST 2009
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 13:15 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I (try to) do daily build/boot testing. The newly built kernel
> is booted via kexec. This was working until sometime between
> 2.6.28 and 2.6.29-rc1, so I bisected it.*
>
> git bisect blames this commit:
>
> 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634 is first bad commit
> commit 96777fe7b042e5a5d0fe5fb861fcd6cd80ef9634
> Author: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu Jan 8 09:46:31 2009 -0600
>
> async: Don't call async_synchronize_full_special() while holding sb_lock
>
> sync_filesystems() shouldn't be calling async_synchronize_full_special
> while holding a spinlock. The second while loop in that function is the
> right place for this anyway.
>
>
> The new/kexec-loaded kernel hangs during initcalls. The last one that
> I can see (via netconsole, might miss a few of the very last lines) is:
>
> calling net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d @ 1
> net_namespace: 1008 bytes
> initcall net_ns_init+0x0/0x14d returned 0 after 0 usecs
>
>
>
> Any ideas/suggestions?
I'm not sure about any limitations of git bisect, but it seems unlikely
to me that sync_filesystems() would be getting called this early. Are
any filesystems even mounted at this point?
Does reverting that commit fix the problem? (I would be surprised, but
stranger things have happened.)
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> *caveat: This was all done with the "don't use gcc 4.1.[01]
> because it miscompiles __weak" patch reverted. Could that
> be an issue/problem here? (I'm using gcc 4.1.1.)
I have no idea.
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
More information about the kexec
mailing list