Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: odd lockdep messages | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:00:10 -0500 |
| |
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] | |