Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
For bugs related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 product line. The current stable release is 5.10. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and above, please visit Red Hat JIRA https://issues.redhat.com/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa?pid=12332745 to report new issues.

Bug 433872

Summary: softlockups at 1024p boot sequence
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: George Beshers <gbeshers>
Component: kernelAssignee: George Beshers <gbeshers>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Red Hat Kernel QE team <kernel-qe>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.2CC: dwa, dzickus, jh, jlim, luyu, martinez, prarit, tee
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: ia64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-04-25 19:13:24 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
console log none

Description George Beshers 2008-02-21 21:24:03 UTC 
Description of problem:

The point of this BZ is just the softlockups.  I have included
the boot sequence with the threshold at the default 10secs.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
  2.6.18-80

How reproducible:
  I always get at least 2, where, when, and other than cpu#0
  which processor varies some.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  Simple boot of 5.1 with the 2.6.18-80 kernel.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 George Beshers 2008-02-21 21:24:03 UTC 
Created attachment 295558 [details]
console log
Comment 2 Luming Yu 2008-03-17 03:46:10 UTC 
Is the softlockup related to staring autofs?
If the problem is harmless and un-avoidable due to the scale of the system,
should we suppress the message? 
Also I'd like to know if upstream behaves different?
Comment 3 Prarit Bhargava 2008-03-17 13:06:07 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> Is the softlockup related to staring autofs?
> If the problem is harmless and un-avoidable due to the scale of the system,
> should we suppress the message? 

No -- we shouldn't.  The issue is real and if it is a scaling issue it should be
resolved upstream and then backported into RHEL.

> Also I'd like to know if upstream behaves different?
> 
>
Comment 4 George Beshers 2008-03-17 16:06:59 UTC 
1.  I don't think it was specifically related to autofs; it was semi-random
    after init started except that there usually was one just before the
    login prompt.

2.  It is certainly related to the scale of the system --- I cut the number
    of cpus to 512 still w/ 4Tb of memory and the problem disappeared.  NOTE
    however that any area of the kernel that must be shared with all cpus
    would have been on a node associated with one of the 512 CPUs and not
    on the other 4 racks which would have had longer latency's.

3.  The machine got shipped before I could get to this, grumble grumble.
Comment 5 George Beshers 2011-04-25 19:13:24 UTC 
Lack of customer interest.