On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:01:38AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 02/20/2014 06:39 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 02/20/2014 12:30 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote: > >> On 2014/2/20 8:29, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> > >>> On 02/18/2014 03:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.10.31 release. > >>>> There are 26 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > >>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > >>>> let me know. > >>>> > >>>> Responses should be made by Thu Feb 20 22:45:20 UTC 2014. > >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. > >>>> > >>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > >>>> > >>>> kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/stable-review/patch-3.10.31-rc1.gz > >>>> and the diffstat can be found below. > >>>> > >>>> thanks, > >>>> > >>>> greg k-h > >>>> > >>> > >>> Compile and boot tests passed on AMD system. Boot failed on Intel > >>> systems. I think the following changes are the suspect, so far by > >>> process of elimination - these two aren't in 3.12 and 3.13 > >>> > >>> # modified: mm/hugetlb.c > >>> # modified: mm/memory-failure.c > >>> > >>> However, my strong suspect is the following: > >>> > >>> Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> mm: fix process accidentally killed by mce because of huge page > >>> migration > >>> > >>> I don't see how this could cause problems, none the less, I will test > >>> without these changes and let you know. > >>> > >>> > >>> Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> mm/memory-failure.c: fix memory leak in successful soft offlining > >>> > >>> I will test without these changes and let you know. > >>> > >>> -- Shuah > >>> > >> > >> Hi Shuah > >> > >> I tested on my system, it boot successfully. > >> > >> hardware: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2420 0 @ 1.90GHz > >> OS: v3.10.30 + the two patches > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Xishi Qiu > > > > Xishi, > > > > I tested without your patch and still see the issue. My wild guess > > wasn't a good one :) I am starting git bisect now. > > > > -- Shuah > > > > > > ok I have it isolated to the following patch: > > Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> > intel_pstate: Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation > > From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> > > commit fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 upstream. > > Take non-idle time into account when calculating core busy time. > This ensures that intel_pstate will notice a decrease in load. > > Boots just fine without this change. Thanks for testing, I'll be dropping that patch as it causes major regressions on my boxes as well. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html