On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:37 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just so I understand correctly. Does the panic hit with and without the > suggested backport patch? The only difference is that you get the full > output with the patch and limited output without it? When `softlockup_panic` is set (which is what my original repro had and what we use in production), without the backport patch, the expected panic would hit a seemingly deadlock. So even when the machine is configured to reboot immediately after the panic (kernel.panic=-1), it just hangs there with an incomplete backtrace. With your patch, the deadlock doesn't happen and the machine reboots successfully. This was and still is the issue this thread is trying to fix. The last log snippet was from an "experiment" that I did in order to understand what's really happening. So far the speculation has been that the panic path was trying to get a lock held by a backtrace dumping thread, but there is not enough evidence which thread is holding the lock and how it uses it. So I set `softlockup_panic` to 0, to get panic out of the equation. Then I saw that one CPU was indeed holding the console lock, trying to write something out. If the panic was to hit while it's doing that, we might get a deadlock. > > -- Steve > -- Best, Daniel
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
