[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subject2.6.25-rc8-mm1 - BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0xffffffff
    On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:32:14 PDT, Andrew Morton said:

    Been seeing these crop up once in a while - can take hours after a reboot
    before I see the first one, but once I see one, I'm likely to see more, at
    a frequency of anywhere from ~5seconds to ~10 minutes between BUG msgs.

    BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0xffffffff
    Pid: 0, comm: swapper Tainted: P 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 #4

    Call Trace:
    [<ffffffff8020b2f4>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x74
    [<ffffffff8022be19>] __schedule_bug+0x5d/0x61
    [<ffffffff80552aea>] schedule+0x11a/0x9e4
    [<ffffffff805536ce>] ? preempt_schedule+0x3c/0xaa
    [<ffffffff802480f1>] ? hrtimer_forward+0x82/0x96
    [<ffffffff804600a4>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x0/0xd5
    [<ffffffff8020b2f4>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x74
    [<ffffffff8020b2e0>] cpu_idle+0xf6/0x10a
    [<ffffffff80540cb2>] rest_init+0x86/0x8a

    Eventually, I end up with a basically hung system, and need to alt-sysrq-B.

    Yes, I know it's tainted, and it's possible the root cause is a self-inflicted
    buggy module - but the traceback above seems odd. Did some of my code manage
    to idle the CPU while is_atomic was set, or is the path from cpu_idle on down
    doing something it shouldn't be?

    (I admit being confused - if my code was the source of the is_atomic error,
    shouldn't it have been caught on the *previous* call to schedule - the one
    that ran through all the queues and decided we should invoke idle?

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-07 08:25    [W:0.019 / U:2.572 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site