Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:16:25 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002 |
| |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 06:43:17PM +0200, Christian Hoffmann wrote: > On 09/10/2011 09:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Christian Hoffmann wrote: > >>On 09/10/2011 06:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>>On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Christian Hoffmann > >>><email@christianhoffmann.info> wrote: > >>>>Hi, > >>>> > >>>>I can see the following bug report in the kernel 3.1 rc5 dmesg: > >>>> > >>>>[ 0.000008] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002 > >>>>[ 0.000012] Modules linked in: > >>>>[ 0.000015] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.1.0-rc5-ch+ #2 > >>>>[ 0.000017] Call Trace: > >>>>[ 0.000024] [<ffffffff81052cb6>] __schedule_bug+0x66/0x70 > >>>>[ 0.000028] [<ffffffff8160329d>] schedule+0x99d/0x9b0 > >>>>[ 0.000032] [<ffffffff81cf22b5>] ? pidmap_init+0x9f/0xdf > >>>>[ 0.000035] [<ffffffff8105cc7a>] __cond_resched+0x2a/0x40 > >>>>[ 0.000038] [<ffffffff81603541>] _cond_resched+0x31/0x40 > >>>>[ 0.000041] [<ffffffff8115fb63>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x53/0x160 > >>>>[ 0.000043] [<ffffffff81cf22b5>] pidmap_init+0x9f/0xdf > >>>>[ 0.000046] [<ffffffff81cd9b8a>] start_kernel+0x333/0x3c8 > >>>>[ 0.000049] [<ffffffff81cd9347>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x132/0x136 > >>>>[ 0.000051] [<ffffffff81cd944c>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x101/0x110 > >>> > >>>Paul McKenney has a patch that solves this oops. You can find it here: > >>> > >>>http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131537669921538&w=2 > >>> > >>>We had discussed getting this into 3.1, but apparently that didn't > >>>happen (yet?). I thought it had been sent upstream with my tested-by, > >>>but I don't see it included in Linus' tree. > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>the patch up there doesn't seem to apply cleanly to 3.1 rc5, as it > >>misses the rename done in "[PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/55] rcu: Simplify > >>quiescent-state accounting" > >>(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131537654621392&w=2). > > > >For 3.1-rc5, you will be wanting this one: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/19/355 > > Hi, > > yes, this applies and makes the stack disappear.
Very good! I have added your Tested-by, along with Josh Boyer's.
Thanx, Paul
| |