Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:00:53 +0100 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [stable] 2.6.32.21 - uptime related crashes? |
| |
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 05:02:32PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:02:23PM -0800, john stultz wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 15:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:25:45AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:44:30PM -0700, john stultz wrote: > > > > > The softlockup false positive issue should have been fixed by Peter's > > > > > "x86, intel: Don't mark sched_clock() as stable" below. But I'm not > > > > > seeing it upstream. Peter, is this still the right fix? > > > > > > > > I've not seen any other one proposed, and both you and Peter appeared > > > > to like it. I understood that Ingo was waiting for the merge window to > > > > submit it and I think that it simply got lost. > > > > > > > > Ingo, can you confirm ? > > > > > > I'm totally confused here, what's the status of this, and what exactly > > > is the patch? > > > > Ingo has the fix from Salman queued in -tip, but I'm not sure why its > > not been pushed to Linus yet. > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git;a=commit;h=4cecf6d401a01d054afc1e5f605bcbfe553cb9b9 > > Wonderful, thanks for pointing this out to me. > > Ingo, any idea when this will go to Linus's tree?
Yes please Ingo, do not delay it any further, this is becoming a real problem, there are people who monitor their uptime to plan a reboot before 200 days. We shouldn't need to wait for the next merge window, the patch is already 15 days old and is a fix for a real-world stability issue !
Thanks, Willy
| |