On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 01:45:11PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> Hmm, I thought I saw it on two systems already, but I should go try that
> again.
Hmm, still haven't figured this out. I just saw this one this morning:
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[<c0103fc4>] dump_stack+0x24/0x30
[<c013d36e>] softlockup_tick+0x7e/0xc0
[<c011eb23>] update_process_times+0x33/0x80
[<c01062c9>] timer_interrupt+0x39/0x80
[<c013d6fd>] handle_IRQ_event+0x3d/0x70
[<c013da59>] __do_IRQ+0xa9/0x150
[<c0104e55>] do_IRQ+0x25/0x60
[<c010313a>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
[<c013d6d8>] handle_IRQ_event+0x18/0x70
[<c013da59>] __do_IRQ+0xa9/0x150
[<c0104e55>] do_IRQ+0x25/0x60
[<c010313a>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
[<c0119cda>] __do_softirq+0x3a/0xa0
[<c0119d6d>] do_softirq+0x2d/0x30
[<c0119fb7>] irq_exit+0x37/0x40
[<c0104e5a>] do_IRQ+0x2a/0x60
[<c010313a>] common_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
[<c013dcee>] setup_irq+0xce/0x1e0
[<c013de97>] request_irq+0x97/0xb0
[<d0851f9d>] pcnet32_open+0x4d/0x3d0 [pcnet32]
[<c023a4f9>] dev_open+0x39/0x80
[<c0238cea>] dev_change_flags+0xfa/0x130
[<c027eb9f>] devinet_ioctl+0x4ff/0x6f0
[<c022dab1>] sock_ioctl+0xf1/0x1f0
[<c017413c>] do_ioctl+0x2c/0x80
[<c01741e2>] vfs_ioctl+0x52/0x2f0
[<c01744ef>] sys_ioctl+0x6f/0x80
[<c0102ef7>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<b7f41d04>] 0xb7f41d04
And it is happening on multiple systems. I am starting to wonder if it
is a bug in the soft lockup detection. Maybe it really isn't locked up
but just momentarily appears to be. I will try turning off the soft
lockup detection and see what happens.
--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
