Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:51:34 +0200 | From | "Vegard Nossum" <> | Subject | Re: v2.6.26-rc9: kernel BUG at kernel/sched.c:5858! |
| |
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Dmitry Adamushko > <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote: >> Vegard, >> >> >> regarding the first crash. Would you please run your test with the >> following debugging patch and let me know its output? >> >> The apperance of " * [ pid ] comm (name), orig_cpu() ... " means we >> hit a problematic case (with Miao Xie's patch it shouldn't crash). >> >> I see that you have CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG=y so I'm also interested in >> messages from sched_domain_debug() - "CPU# attaching ...". IOW, all >> the kernel messages appearing while a cpu is going down and up. [...]
> Ok, now I tested it on my laptop (sorry, no serial console :-)) and I
Now I tested using serial console, but nothing new:
CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain. CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain. CPU0 attaching sched-domain: domain 0: span 0-1 groups: 0 1 domain 1: span 0-1 groups: 0-1 CPU1 attaching sched-domain: domain 0: span 0-1 groups: 1 0 domain 1: span 0-1 groups: 0-1 * [ 7 ] comm (ksoftirqd/1), orig_cpu (1), dst_cpu (1), cpu (1) CPU 1 is now offline * [ 1228 ] comm (kjournald), orig_cpu (0), dst_cpu (0), cpu (0) * [ 3113 ] comm (klogd), orig_cpu (0), dst_cpu (0), cpu (0) BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, syslogd/3110
and here the output stops. I find this REALLY strange, look at the spinlock recursion code:
printk(KERN_EMERG "BUG: spinlock %s on CPU#%d, %s/%d\n", msg, raw_smp_processor_id(), current->comm, task_pid_nr(current)); printk(KERN_EMERG " lock: %p, .magic: %08x, .owner: %s/%d, " ".owner_cpu: %d\n", lock, lock->magic, owner ? owner->comm : "<none>", owner ? task_pid_nr(owner) : -1, lock->owner_cpu);
why would it not be able to print the second line?
Vegard
-- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
| |