[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL v2] sched: Make sleep inside atomic detection work on !PREEMPT

    * Frederic Weisbecker <> wrote:

    > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:30:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > Ingo,
    > >
    > > Please pull the sched/core branch that can be found at:
    > >
    > > git://
    > > sched/core
    > Hi Ingo,
    > I have added Randy's ack on the last patch. To get it, please pull the v2 in
    > the following branch:
    > git://
    > sched/core-v2
    > There are no other changes.

    Hm, this triggers such warnings now:

    Detected 2010.217 MHz processor.
    Marking TSC unstable due to TSCs unsynchronized
    Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 4022.95 BogoMIPS (lpj=6700723)
    pid_max: default: 4096 minimum: 301
    BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002
    no locks held by swapper/0.
    Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.0.0-rc5-tip-01401-ga7adf5f-dirty #141020
    Call Trace:
    [<ffffffff81ddb3b0>] __schedule_bug+0x60/0x65
    [<ffffffff81dee803>] schedule+0x953/0x980
    [<ffffffff81571e30>] ? serial8250_console_putchar+0x30/0x40
    [<ffffffff81df177b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x50
    [<ffffffff8107882a>] __cond_resched+0x2a/0x40
    [<ffffffff81dee8e2>] _cond_resched+0x32/0x40
    [<ffffffff81110ba8>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b8/0x880
    [<ffffffff81df23ce>] ? common_interrupt+0xe/0x13
    [<ffffffff81080649>] ? vprintk+0x359/0x530
    [<ffffffff8113b4e7>] slob_new_pages+0x17/0x80
    [<ffffffff8113bd13>] __kmalloc_node+0xa3/0x270
    [<ffffffff81ddb6d5>] ? printk+0x41/0x43
    [<ffffffff82738420>] pidmap_init+0x80/0xbf
    [<ffffffff8272aa54>] start_kernel+0x28b/0x300
    [<ffffffff8272a2ee>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xfe/0x102
    [<ffffffff8272a3e2>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xf0/0xf7
    Security Framework initialized
    AppArmor: AppArmor initialized
    Mount-cache hash table entries: 256
    Initializing cgroup subsys cpuacct

    Not sure we want to warn about schedule during early init, or can it
    cause problems and should thus be fixed? I bet there's more such



     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-01 14:39    [W:0.022 / U:0.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site