> System Management is *hard*, because it must build upon someone else's I prefer to apply each of these by hand, so that I can see what is actually happening, and there are no actual other additional changes, other than this pr_info addition to clear_local_APIC() in arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c. It is not helpful to describe the addition of one pr_info statement in terms of "Remove all diffs you have ontop of your 5.12 kernel".
#Logitech g hub stuck on initializing full
> same exercise with it and send me one full dmesg pls. > you have ontop of your 5.12 kernel, apply the one below, do the exact
#Logitech g hub stuck on initializing Patch
> patch will confirm my theory, see the end of the mail. *this* is a good catch, I *think* I know what happens and the next > order, I was very sceptical how can that even be?! > And with my patch simply moving the LVT THMR read back in the boot It is essentially one of the many levels of the same process described in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". But the process, by necessity, is incremental, a step-wise process of increasing knowledge.
> have done that mistake a bunch of times and have seen others do it too I'm not saying you have made a mistake but I > Well, git-bisect can very easily veer off into the fields if the On 5/24/21 1:51 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: To: Borislav Petkov +Cc: linux-smp, Jens Axboe, lkml 7:51 ` Borislav Petkov 4:02 ` James Feeney 0 siblings, 0 replies 16+ messages in thread If you still have an interest in my issue, there are posts going to linux-smp and lkml. So now, I expect that my issue has nothing to do with your patch set. The result changed, and we are currently investigating the final commit, at 4f432e8bb15b x86/mce: Get rid of mcheck_intel_therm_init(). I still find it interesting that I get the same symptoms that James describes, but other than that the issues don't seem to be related.įor my part, I also had to re-run my bisect, with more thorough testing. Well, turns out I should've googled (or at least looked at the bcache wiki entry) at first, which points to a known bug involving bcache and 5.12: > Any information of the system? What block driver(s) do you use, how On 5/17/21 6:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: To: Christoph Hellwig +Cc: linux-smp, linux-block 12:27 ` linux 5.12 - fails to boot - soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! - RIP smp_call_function_single Christoph 15:50 ` James Feeney 0 siblings, 0 replies 16+ messages in thread * Re: linux 5.12 - fails to boot - soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! - RIP smp_call_function_single > I'll have to re-do my git bisect, with more extensive system "exercise", to see if something more useful results. A full power-off reboot is needed to get past the early screen initialization. As with Markus, I've also noticed that a "warm" reboot can result in a frozen system immediately after the boot loader has run. Perhaps something closer to the real issue is in there. > These 8 commits - total - are from Christopher Hellwig, 2021 Feb 02.
The system did not react to any inputs (Alt+SysRq) or to a short press of the PC's power button, and thus a hard shutdown was necessary. > However, there are six commits between those, that did not boot and left me stuck with a black screen right after the bootloader (so no systemd startup message or similar). > f007a3d66c5480c8dae3fa20a89a06861ef1f5db worked flawlessly, without any hiccups doing random internet browsing while I was compiling the next bisect step.
> 7a800a20ae6329e803c5c646b20811a6ae9ca136 showed the issue described, where a seemingly working kernel will lock up rather quickly. > Trying to bisect, I arrived at a different set of commits though. However, see another git bisect for possibly the same issue at > It seems that my git bisect is probably off, since apparently the system may sometimes boot to a temporarily working state, and some "exercise" is needed to identify the failure. > Again, smp_call_function_single is defined in kernel/smp.c > watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s!. The error is the same, except the top of the Call Trace is different: > With the patch to kernel/smp.c in linux 5.12.4, "smp: Fix smp_call_function_single_async prototype", by Arnd Bergmann, I thought maybe there was a fix. To: James Feeney +Cc: linux-smp, linux-blockĪny information of the system? What block driver(s) do you use, how 15:50 ` James Feeney 0 siblings, 1 reply 16+ messages in threadįrom: Christoph Hellwig 12:27 UTC ( / raw) Re: linux 5.12 - fails to boot - soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! - RIP smp_call_function_single All of help / color / mirror / Atom feed * Re: linux 5.12 - fails to boot - soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s! - RIP smp_call_function_single
0 kommentar(er)
