On Thursday, July 08, 2010 09:34:25 pm Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Unresolved regressions > > ---------------------- > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353 > > Subject : 2.6.35 regression > > Submitter : Zeev Tarantov <zeev.tarantov@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old) > > Message-ID : <loom.20100705T144459-919@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127836002702522&w=2 > > This is a gcc-4.5 issue. Whether it's also something that we should > change in the kernel is unclear, but at least as of now, the rule is > that you cannot compile the kernel with gcc-4.5. No idea whether the > compiler is just entirely broken, or whether it's just that it > triggers something iffy by being overly clever. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked > > rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane > > <miles.lane@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTinof0k28rk4rMr66aubxcRL2rFa5ZEArj1lqD3o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2 > > I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as > regressions. > > Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it > reports about generally are not new - and they are usually not even > bugs in the sense that they necessarily cause any real problems. > > That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for > fget_light, ie > > if (likely((atomic_read(&files->count) == 1))) { > file = fcheck_files(files, fd); > > where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any > locking. So I think it's a false positive too. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334 > > Subject : reiserfs locking (v2) > > Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100702093451.GA3973@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127806306303590&w=2 > > Frederic? Al? I assume this is some late fallout from the BKL removal > ages ago.. It's the old filldir-vs-mmap crud, but normally it should > be impossible to trigger because the inode for a directory should > never be mmap'able, so we should never have the same i_mutex lock used > for both mmap and for filldir protection. > > We saw some of that oddity long ago, I wonder if it's lockdep being > confused about some inodes. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333 > > Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE?? > > Submitter : Priit Laes <plaes@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old) > > Message-ID : <1278086575.2889.8.camel@chi> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127808659705983&w=2 > > This either got fixed, or will be practically impossible to debug. The > reporter ends up being unable to reproduce the issue. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332 > > Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open) > > Submitter : werner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Date : 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old) > > Message-ID : <1278041650.12788@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127804167511930&w=2 > > This seems to be due to CONFIG_MRST (Moorestown). > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330 > > Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3? > > Submitter : Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old) > > Message-ID : <201007011744.19564.trenn@xxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127799907218877&w=2 > > There's a suggested patch in > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127862524404291&w=2 > > but no reply to it yet. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no > > apparent reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O Submitter : > > Török Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100701104022.404410d6@debian> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127797005030536&w=2 > > This seems to be partly a confusion about what "load average" is. It's > not a CPU load, it's a system load average, and disk-wait processes > count towards it. He has some problem with his CD-ROM, and it sounds > like it might be hardware on the verge of going bad. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324 > > Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box > > against latest git Submitter : divya <dipraksh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old) > > Message-ID : <4C2B28F3.7000006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127789697303061&w=2 > > I wonder if this is the writeback problem. That POWER crash dump is > unreadable, so it's hard to tell, but the load in question makes that > at least likely. > > If so, it should hopefully be fixed in today's git (commit > 83ba7b071f30f7c01f72518ad72d5cd203c27502 and friends). > > > Bug-entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16323 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git4 - kernel/sched.c:616 invoked > > rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane > > <miles.lane@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-01 12:21 (8 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTini6hz2LFeZi8CMUmY3xw1MU7NxmyesuxZ4oCdo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127798693125541&w=2 > > See earlier about these being marked as regressions, but it should be > fixed by commit dc61b1d6 ("sched: Fix PROVE_RCU vs cpu_cgroup"). > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16322 > > Subject : WARNING: at /arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:1005 > > read_measured_perf_ctrs+0x5a/0x70() Submitter : boris64 > > <bugzilla.kernel.org@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-07-01 13:54 (8 days old) > > Handled-By : H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> > > Magic. Strange and dark magic. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16311 > > Subject : [REGRESSION][SUSPEND] 2.6.35-rcX won't suspend Lenovo > > W500 laptop Submitter : Shawn Starr <shawn.starr@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-28 0:45 (11 days old) > > Message-ID : <201006272045.17004.shawn.starr@xxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127768633705286&w=2 > > I think this might be usefully bisected. Shawn? > I'll have to try bisecting this weekend. It continues in Linux sh0n.net 2.6.35-rc4+ #1 SMP Wed Jul 7 23:58:41 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16309 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3 oops trying to suspend. > > Submitter : Andrew Hendry <andrew.hendry@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-27 12:40 (12 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTinUH2p33-AWxOVDrLsNkn9rgEVrlwn5mfK7P8NH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127764249926781&w=2 > > I'm pretty sure this was fixed by Nick in commit 57439f878afa ("fs: > fix superblock iteration race"). > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16307 > > Subject : i915 in kernel 2.6.35-rc3, high number of wakeups > > Submitter : Enrico Bandiello <enban@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-26 16:57 (13 days old) > > Message-ID : <4C26317A.5070309@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127757403404259&w=2 > > I don't think anybody noticed this one. Jesse? > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16304 > > Subject : i915 - high number of wakeups > > Submitter : Enrico Bandiello <enban@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-27 09:52 (12 days old) > > Duplicate of that 16307 one. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16284 > > Subject : Hitting WARN_ON in hw_breakpoint code > > Submitter : Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-23 12:57 (16 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100623125740.GA3368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127729789113432&w=2 > > This has "I have a fix, will post it very soon." in the thread from > Frederic, but I'm not seeing anything else. Frederic? > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16265 > > Subject : Why is kslowd accumulating so much CPU time? > > Submitter : Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-09 18:36 (30 days old) > > First-Bad-Commit: > > http://git.kernel.org/linus/fbf81762e385d3d45acad057b654d56972acf58c > > Message-ID : <E1OMQ88-0002a1-Gb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127610857819033&w=4 > > Dave, Jesse? > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16234 > > Subject : [2.6.35-rc3] reboot mutex 'bug'... > > Submitter : Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-14 15:16 (25 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTimDcTnyEPmt2ZcCM1UWtn4AYKotiqyjobJApkO7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127652861118933&w=2 > > Ok, this is definitely harmless. Whether we should silence the warning > somehow is a separate question. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16230 > > Subject : inconsistent IN-HARDIRQ-W -> HARDIRQ-ON-W usage: > > fasync, 2.6.35-rc3 Submitter : Dominik Brodowski > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date : 2010-06-13 9:53 (26 days > > old) > > Message-ID : <20100613095305.GA13231@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127642282208277&w=2 > > Fixed by commit f4985dc714d7. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16228 > > Subject : BUG/boot failure on Dell Precision T3500 > > (pci/ahci_stop_engine) Submitter : Brian Bloniarz > > <phunge0@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-16 17:57 (23 days old) > > Handled-By : Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@xxxxxx> > > This has a butt-ugly suggested patch that certainly won't be applied. > I saw the thread, but lost sight of it. Jesse, did that end up with > some resolution? > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16221 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc2-git5 -- [drm:drm_mode_getfb] *ERROR* invalid > > framebuffer id Submitter : Miles Lane <miles.lane@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-11 20:31 (28 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTim0jVRyqkwlGOcrg_XTvUQwcBYfWJX-aRzkkrLG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127628828119623&w=2 > > I dunno. Old, and apparently seen by two people. Dave? > > Might be helped by bisection. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16205 > > Subject : acpi: freeing invalid memtype bf799000-bf79a000 > > Submitter : Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-09 20:09 (30 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100609200910.GA2876@xxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127611427029914&w=2 > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127688398513862&w=2 > > This should be fixed by commit b945d6b2554d ("rbtree: Undo augmented > trees performance damage and regression"). > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16199 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc2-git1 - include/linux/cgroup.h:534 invoked > > rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane > > <miles.lane@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-07 18:14 (32 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTin2pPqOUx--9fIX3BH3e-cU6oCRufijcx_4ozx5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127593447812015&w=2 > > Another RCU proving thing. And this one looks the same as the 16323 > one above, and fixed by the same commit as that one. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16197 > > Subject : [BUG on 2.6.35-rc2] sysfs: cannot create duplicate > > filename '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/0000:02:03.0/slot' Submitter > > : Ryan Wang <openspace.wang@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-07 0:23 (32 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTincwMZPnYW3S4uz4k2GOn52RpgBIBRfzyD010Yo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127587022219378&w=2 > > These should all be gone. See commit 3be434f0244ee by Jesse ('Revert > "PCI: create function symlinks in /sys/bus/pci/slots/N/"'). > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16187 > > Subject : Carrier detection failed in dhcpcd when link is up > > Submitter : Christian Casteyde <casteyde.christian@xxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-12 15:15 (27 days old) > > First-Bad-Commit: > > http://git.kernel.org/linus/10708f37ae729baba9b67bd134c3720709d4ae62 > > Handled-By : Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > David? This bisects to a networking commit. Doesn't look sensible, but > what do I know? > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16184 > > Subject : Container, X86-64, i386, iptables rule > > Submitter : Jean-Marc Pigeon <jmp@xxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-12 04:17 (27 days old) > > Handled-By : Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx> > > Patrick, Davem? Ping? > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16179 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc2 completely hosed on intel gfx? > > Submitter : Norbert Preining <preining@xxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-06 11:55 (33 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100606115534.GA9399@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127582534931581&w=2 > > Hmm. That one is the vt.c bug coupled with another problem, which in > turn got opened as a separate bugzilla entry: > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16252 > > which in turn then got closed. I dunno. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16175 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc1 system oom, many processes killed but memory > > not free Submitter : andrew hendry <andrew.hendry@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-05 0:46 (34 days old) > > Message-ID : > > <AANLkTim7CiW-yfugZUAHZCqLvXKgt9CwolCvbLGdCLAk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127569877714937&w=2 > > Not a regression or a kernel bug at all. See the thread. Big ramdisk > filled up all of memory when it was filled by the builds. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16145 > > Subject : Unable to boot unless "notsc" or "clocksource=hpet", or > > acpi_pad disabling the TSC Submitter : Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-07 13:11 (32 days old) > > Handled-By : Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This is not a regression. See the full bugzilla details. The same > problem persists at least back to 2.6.30 with his config. So it's > somehow specific to his particular config use that requires "notsc" to > boot. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16122 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc1: WARNING at fs/fs-writeback.c:1142 > > __mark_inode_dirty+0x103/0x170 Submitter : Larry Finger > > <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date : 2010-06-04 13:18 (35 days old) > > Handled-By : Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > > This looks like a duplicate of that 16312 bugzilla entry. Jens, has > this been resolved? > > Linus _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
