lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: INFO: task rcuc/0:7 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:38:30PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 12:37:17PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 08:29:59PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2011-12-26 at 08:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > Except that when I try looking for task_notify_func() in current mainline,
> > > > > > I get nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where is task_notify_func() coming from?
> > > > >
> > > > > I was testing linux-next, it actually comes from the android tree:
> > > > > drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > > >
> > > > That does sound familiar... I wonder if the stuff in staging is current
> > > > Android or historical stuff.
> > >
> > > And memory did serve for once. ;-)
> > >
> > > Current Android has the following for task_notify_func():
> > >
> > > static int
> > > task_notify_func(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long val, void *data)
> > > {
> > > struct task_struct *task = data;
> > >
> > > if (task == lowmem_deathpending)
> > > lowmem_deathpending = NULL;
> > >
> > > return NOTIFY_OK;
> > > }
> > >
> > > This is from https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common.git.
> > >
> > > Commit 5545554aac04918ece318270d63cbfcb015577a9 fixed this problem.
> > > The commit is shown below, FYI.
> > >
> > > Greg, would it be possible to pull in the current Android code? There
> > > have been a few fixes. ;-)
> >
> > I did base the stuff in staging on the common.git tree, but for some
> > reason this patch wasn't applied, odd, I'll go apply it now...
> >
> > Ah, I see, it didn't apply for various reasons:
> >
> > patching file drivers/staging/android/lowmemorykiller.c
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 71.
> > Hunk #2 FAILED at 168.
> > Hunk #3 succeeded at 196 (offset 11 lines).
> > Hunk #4 succeeded at 204 (offset 11 lines).
> >
> > Care to rebase this patch and send it to me so that I can apply it? I
> > don't have the time to do it myself at the moment, sorry, lots of higher
> > priority items to get done this week, sorry.
>
> I will give it a shot. Working with linux-next -- if some other tree
> would be better for you, please let me know.

linux-next is great, thanks.

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-03 22:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans