lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new (common) WARNING message?

* Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:

> Mike Travis wrote:
> > I've been seeing these on and off for a while now. They don't
> > seem to affect anything but perhaps I should track them down?
> >
> > Do you know what it means? (I'm asking you because evidently
> > debugobjects.c is from you? I read the good explanation in the
> > changelog of 3ac7fe5a, but it didn't clue me into what's going
> > on. ;-)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > --
> >
> > [ 1294.973592] ODEBUG: object is on stack, but not annotated
> > [ 1294.974067] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 1294.974067] WARNING: at /mdata/lwork/polaris3/travis/workareas/ingo-latest/linux-2.6-for-ingo/lib/debugobjects.c:253 __debug_object_init+0x27c/0x2f0()
> > [ 1294.974067] Hardware name: X7DBT
> > [ 1294.974067] Pid: 4150, comm: offline-test Tainted: G W 2.6.29-rc1-4k-defconfig.01151634-00255-gc99dbbe-dirty #89
> > [ 1294.974067] Call Trace:
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81047e3f>] warn_slowpath+0xd3/0xf2
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8106c64f>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff815ca6ac>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x4c
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8125bebe>] ? __debug_check_no_obj_freed+0xf6/0x14c
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81048d3c>] ? printk+0x6c/0x6e
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8125c449>] ? __debug_object_init+0xf9/0x2f0
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8125b3ae>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0xc7/0xf6
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8125c5cc>] __debug_object_init+0x27c/0x2f0
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8125c66d>] debug_object_init+0x14/0x17
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81052320>] init_timer+0x1d/0x2a
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81025077>] hpet_cpuhp_notify+0xad/0x124
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81025233>] ? hpet_work+0x0/0x21a
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81062057>] notifier_call_chain+0x33/0x5b
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff810620ad>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff810620c3>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x16
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff815c5190>] _cpu_up+0x115/0x155
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff815c527c>] cpu_up+0x65/0x73
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff815ac21d>] store_online+0x52/0x7b
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff812ff775>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x22
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff81134f6b>] sysfs_write_file+0xe9/0x11e
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff810e0da5>] vfs_write+0xea/0x148
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff810e0ec7>] sys_write+0x4c/0x72
> > [ 1294.974067] [<ffffffff8100c6cb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > [ 1294.974067] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da24 ]---
> > --
>
> The warning tells us that arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c::hpet_cpuhp_notify()
> allocates a timer on the stack. In particular, it allocates a struct
> hpet_work_struct on the stack which incorporates a timer.
>
> Now, a timer instance on a stack would be wrong if the function which
> defined that timer exits too early. But in case of hpet_cpuhp_notify(),
> this is OK since
> - it waits for the work be done,
> - the work does not rearm itself.
> IOW the work and thus the timer won't be accessed anymore when
> hpet_cpuhp_notify() returns.
>
> So, hpet_cpuhp_notify() apparently needs a variant of INIT_DELAYED_WORK
> which uses init_timer_on_stack instead of init_timer, to say "trust me,
> I know what I'm doing".

that's already fixed in tip/timers/urgent and queued up for Linus:

6d612b0: locking, hpet: annotate false positive warning

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-16 14:05    [W:0.065 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site