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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans