lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002
On 09/10/2011 09:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 07:17:53PM +0200, Christian Hoffmann wrote:
>> On 09/10/2011 06:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Christian Hoffmann
>>> <email@christianhoffmann.info> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I can see the following bug report in the kernel 3.1 rc5 dmesg:
>>>>
>>>> [ 0.000008] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002
>>>> [ 0.000012] Modules linked in:
>>>> [ 0.000015] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.1.0-rc5-ch+ #2
>>>> [ 0.000017] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 0.000024] [<ffffffff81052cb6>] __schedule_bug+0x66/0x70
>>>> [ 0.000028] [<ffffffff8160329d>] schedule+0x99d/0x9b0
>>>> [ 0.000032] [<ffffffff81cf22b5>] ? pidmap_init+0x9f/0xdf
>>>> [ 0.000035] [<ffffffff8105cc7a>] __cond_resched+0x2a/0x40
>>>> [ 0.000038] [<ffffffff81603541>] _cond_resched+0x31/0x40
>>>> [ 0.000041] [<ffffffff8115fb63>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x53/0x160
>>>> [ 0.000043] [<ffffffff81cf22b5>] pidmap_init+0x9f/0xdf
>>>> [ 0.000046] [<ffffffff81cd9b8a>] start_kernel+0x333/0x3c8
>>>> [ 0.000049] [<ffffffff81cd9347>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x132/0x136
>>>> [ 0.000051] [<ffffffff81cd944c>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x101/0x110
>>>
>>> Paul McKenney has a patch that solves this oops. You can find it here:
>>>
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131537669921538&w=2
>>>
>>> We had discussed getting this into 3.1, but apparently that didn't
>>> happen (yet?). I thought it had been sent upstream with my tested-by,
>>> but I don't see it included in Linus' tree.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the patch up there doesn't seem to apply cleanly to 3.1 rc5, as it
>> misses the rename done in "[PATCH tip/core/rcu 23/55] rcu: Simplify
>> quiescent-state accounting"
>> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131537654621392&w=2).
>
> For 3.1-rc5, you will be wanting this one:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/19/355

Hi,

yes, this applies and makes the stack disappear.

Thanks,
Chris


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-12 18:45    [W:0.056 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site