lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: odd lockdep messages
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:43:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra said:
    > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 13:30 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
    > > (Not sure when this started, just noticed it... Wasn't present in
    > > 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210, is in 2.6.33-mmotm0302 and -mmotm0304).
    > >
    > > Seen in dmesg:

    > > [ 1.012163] BUG: key ffff88011efbf500 not in .data!
    > > [ 1.012284] BUG: key ffff88011efbf548 not in .data!

    > Can that be wreckage due to the new per-cpu stuff?
    >
    > Its a message printed when the below function fails, and that per-cpu
    > stuff seems the one most likely to break, given that there was quite a
    > lot of churn in that department recently.

    Would it make sense to stick some printk's on the 'return 1' cases

    > /*
    > * static variable?
    > */
    > if ((addr >= start) && (addr < end))
    > return 1;
    >
    > if (arch_is_kernel_data(addr))
    > return 1;
    >
    > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
    > /*
    > * percpu var?
    > */
    > for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
    > start = (unsigned long) &__per_cpu_start + per_cpu_offset(i);
    > end = (unsigned long) &__per_cpu_start + PERCPU_ENOUGH_ROOM
    > + per_cpu_offset(i);
    >
    > if ((addr >= start) && (addr < end))
    > return 1;

    or am I setting myself up for printk spam from hell if I do that?
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-08 21:05    [W:0.023 / U:32.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site