lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Announce] 2.6.29-rc4-rt2
    On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:56:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > We are pleased to announce the first update to our new preempt-rt
    > series. It fixes the reported bugs and some more.
    >
    > Download locations:
    >
    > http://rt.et.redhat.com/download/
    > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/
    >
    > Information on the RT patch can be found at:
    >
    > http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
    >
    > to build the 2.6.29-rc4-rt2 tree, the following patches should be
    > applied:
    >
    > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/linux-2.6.29-rc4.tar.bz2
    > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/patch-2.6.29-rc4-rt2.bz2
    >
    > The broken out patches are also available at the same download
    > locations.
    >
    > Enjoy !
    >
    > Thomas, Ingo


    Hi,

    It fixes the rt-concerned warning I had.
    Now, a new little lockdep info, tell me if you need my config, I changed
    it a bit:

    [ 0.012874] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
    [ 0.012940] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
    [ 0.013008] turning off the locking correctness validator.
    [ 0.013847] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.29-rc4-rt2-tip #2
    [ 0.013917] Call Trace:
    [ 0.013981] [<ffffffff80285985>] __lock_acquire+0x1825/0x1b20
    [ 0.014053] [<ffffffff802846fb>] ? __lock_acquire+0x59b/0x1b20
    [ 0.014125] [<ffffffff80283326>] ? mark_held_locks+0x56/0xa0
    [ 0.014197] [<ffffffff80285d1f>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0xe0
    [ 0.014267] [<ffffffff80780ea8>] ? rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x38/0x310
    [ 0.014342] [<ffffffff80783211>] __spin_lock_irqsave+0x51/0x70
    [ 0.014415] [<ffffffff80780ea8>] ? rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x38/0x310
    [ 0.014489] [<ffffffff80780ea8>] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x38/0x310
    [ 0.014562] [<ffffffff802836dc>] ? debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x9c/0x160
    [ 0.014636] [<ffffffff80781edc>] rt_spin_lock+0x4c/0xa0
    [ 0.014706] [<ffffffff80276f51>] compat_down_timeout+0x21/0x60
    [ 0.014780] [<ffffffff804910ca>] acpi_os_wait_semaphore+0x4e/0x5d
    [ 0.014853] [<ffffffff804aafa9>] acpi_ut_acquire_mutex+0x43/0x87
    [ 0.014926] [<ffffffff804a06cd>] acpi_ns_root_initialize+0x28/0x2ab
    [ 0.014999] [<ffffffff80449d88>] ? __raw_spin_lock_init+0x38/0x70
    [ 0.015073] [<ffffffff80acbd6a>] acpi_initialize_subsystem+0x69/0x91
    [ 0.015147] [<ffffffff80acc24a>] acpi_early_init+0x50/0xf5
    [ 0.015219] [<ffffffff80aa1ea5>] start_kernel+0x3d2/0x4ca
    [ 0.015290] [<ffffffff80aa12b9>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x99/0xb9
    [ 0.015362] [<ffffffff80aa13d5>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xfc/0x10b
    [ 0.015436] [<ffffffff80aa1140>] ? early_idt_handler+0x0/0x71

    Oh and I just tested the tracers.
    It seems to run fine for all of them except sysprof.
    It passes the self-test but doesn't produce any trace when I manually try.

    Not completely sure this is only in -rt so I'm pulling very latest -tip
    and will see if I find the same problem there.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-13 01:51    [W:0.022 / U:93.888 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site