Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:43:17 +0200 | From | Christian Hoffmann <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |