Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Nov 2011 12:51:29 +0300 | From | Sergey Senozhatsky <> | Subject | Re: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock_acquire+0x168/0x164b() |
| |
On (11/04/11 17:34), Yong Zhang wrote: > > > > I'm compiling the kernel with you patch right now. > > > > The whole point was just for > > > > case if someone has different approach or whatsoever. > > > > > > Understood. If someone can come up with a simple patch which could > > > cover the case I mentioned before, that would be great. > > > /me goes to poke at it. > > > > I dunno whether this is related but I get the following on 3.1: > > Maybe, so could you try my patches just sent out? > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132039886826672 >
Sure I'll try you patches. Later today or (most likely) during the upcoming weekend, since now I'm extremly busy at work.
Thanks, Sergey
> Thanks, > Yong > > > > > [ 5499.537074] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > > [ 5499.537080] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. > > [ 5499.537083] turning off the locking correctness validator. > > [ 5499.537088] Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.1.0 #1 > > [ 5499.537091] Call Trace: > > [ 5499.537094] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8107beed>] __lock_acquire+0x165d/0x1e30 > > [ 5499.537109] [<ffffffff810321fc>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80 > > [ 5499.537115] [<ffffffff8107ccd3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x160 > > [ 5499.537120] [<ffffffff810321fc>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80 > > [ 5499.537126] [<ffffffff814d9866>] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x50 > > [ 5499.537130] [<ffffffff810321fc>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80 > > [ 5499.537135] [<ffffffff810321fc>] double_rq_lock+0x2c/0x80 > > [ 5499.537140] [<ffffffff81039195>] load_balance+0x215/0x6c0 > > [ 5499.537146] [<ffffffff81039640>] ? load_balance+0x6c0/0x6c0 > > [ 5499.537151] [<ffffffff810396fd>] rebalance_domains+0xbd/0x1d0 > > [ 5499.537155] [<ffffffff81039640>] ? load_balance+0x6c0/0x6c0 > > [ 5499.537161] [<ffffffff810398ec>] run_rebalance_domains+0xdc/0x130 > > [ 5499.537166] [<ffffffff81048dcd>] __do_softirq+0xbd/0x290 > > [ 5499.537173] [<ffffffff814dc42c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 > > [ 5499.537178] [<ffffffff81003eb5>] do_softirq+0x85/0xc0 > > [ 5499.537183] [<ffffffff810492ce>] irq_exit+0x9e/0xc0 > > [ 5499.537189] [<ffffffff8101ca9f>] smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x2f/0x40 > > [ 5499.537195] [<ffffffff814dbeb0>] call_function_single_interrupt+0x70/0x80 > > [ 5499.537199] <EOI> [<ffffffff810096e6>] ? native_sched_clock+0x26/0x70 > > [ 5499.537212] [<ffffffffa0038e1a>] ? acpi_idle_enter_simple+0xee/0x11f [processor] > > [ 5499.537221] [<ffffffffa0038e15>] ? acpi_idle_enter_simple+0xe9/0x11f [processor] > > [ 5499.537227] [<ffffffff813f8b1d>] cpuidle_idle_call+0xdd/0x350 > > [ 5499.537233] [<ffffffff8100081f>] cpu_idle+0x6f/0xd0 > > [ 5499.537238] [<ffffffff814cc665>] start_secondary+0x1ae/0x1b3 > > > > -- > > Regards/Gruss, > > Boris. > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > -- > Only stand for myself >
| |