On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Dan Williams wrote: > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report >> > of recent regressions. >> > >> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions >> > from 2.6.29. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know >> > (either way). >> >> This is still unresolved. >> >> Stephen, please send your config. >> > > Given the stack for the initial report, why would a config other than > enabling CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE help if there's no ifdefs involved? ...because I have been unable to reproduce it and wanted to start eliminating differences in our respective setups. I have booted an oversubscribed (8-virtual / 2 physical cpus) kvm instance with 2.6.29 and have not seen this reproduce. > This is happening in the for_each_possible_cpu() loop within > dma_channel_rebalance(), which makes sense since the machine boots fine > normally but not with `nosmp'. > > channel_table[] is not being initialized per-cpu for non-online cpus? I'm grasping, but could this possibly be a kvm quirk whereby cpu_possible_map gets out of sync with cpu_online_map in the 'nosmp' case? -- Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
