lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [discuss] 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions (v2)
    On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:49:26 +0100
    "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

    > > > > Subject : BUG: scheduling while atomic: events/0/0x00000001/4
    > > > > after resume
    > > > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/2/209
    > > > > Submitter : Paolo Ornati <ornati@fastwebnet.it>
    > > > > Status : unknown
    > > >
    > > > I couldn't find anything in the report that would indicate the problem occured
    > > > after a resume. Was it really the case?
    > >
    > > Ahh, I've written that in another email but I trimmed LKML from CC by
    > > mistake ;)
    > >
    > >
    > > Relevant portion of that mail follows... anyway it seems that "-rc5" is
    > > _OK_ since I'm running it by 2 days and it survived 9 suspend/resume
    > > cycles.
    >
    > Okay, please let us know if it survives the next several cycles.
    >
    > OTOH, the problem may be hiding.

    Ok, and if it survives againg and again I can do a partial bisection...

    so that someone could guess the change that hides/fixes this and I can
    revert it on top of "-rc5" to confirm.


    >
    > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >
    > > I've reproduced it (with rc4-g4b1c46a3), and I think it is
    > > suspend/resume related sice the messages start flooding dmesg just
    > > after a resume...
    > >
    > > I'll see if it is reproducible just doing suspend/resume a couple of
    > > times... and if so I'll try with -rc5.
    > >
    > >
    > > dmesg (stripped at the end):
    > >
    > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 2.6.19-rc4-g4b1c46a3 (paolo@tux) (gcc version 4.1.1 (Gentoo 4.1.1)) #17 PREEMPT Wed Nov 1 18:36:28 CET 2006

    [CUT]

    > > [ 25.382084] BUG: scheduling while atomic: events/0/0x00000001/4
    > > [ 25.382086]
    > > [ 25.382087] Call Trace:
    > > [ 25.382097] [<ffffffff8049fafb>] __sched_text_start+0x5b/0x4cc
    > > [ 25.382102] [<ffffffff802f34b6>] list_add+0xc/0xe
    > > [ 25.382107] [<ffffffff80236519>] worker_thread+0x0/0x11b
    > > [ 25.382110] [<ffffffff802365ce>] worker_thread+0xb5/0x11b
    > > [ 25.382115] [<ffffffff802233e2>] default_wake_function+0x0/0xf
    > > [ 25.382119] [<ffffffff80236519>] worker_thread+0x0/0x11b
    > > [ 25.382124] [<ffffffff80239269>] kthread+0xce/0x101
    > > [ 25.382128] [<ffffffff802234b1>] schedule_tail+0x30/0xa2
    > > [ 25.382132] [<ffffffff8020a238>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
    > > [ 25.382137] [<ffffffff8023919b>] kthread+0x0/0x101
    > > [ 25.382140] [<ffffffff8020a22e>] child_rip+0x0/0x12
    >
    > Apparently, the kernel thinks that worker_thread() is running in the atomic
    > context, so there may be a problem with preempt_count(), for example.
    >
    > Is preemption enabled in your kernel(s)?

    YES (see first line of dmesg) - full config attached

    --
    Paolo Ornati
    Linux 2.6.19-rc5 on x86_64
    [unhandled content-type:application/x-gzip]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-11 13:37    [W:0.030 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site