[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070223101025.GA21127@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:10:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
Cc: Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...glemail.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.20-git15 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! - timers?
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> could you please try the patch below? This is pretty much the only
> condition under which we can silently 'leak' pending softirqs, and
> trigger the new warning: if something does cond_resched_softirq() in
> non-runnable state. (which is a no-no, but nothing enforced this, so
> it could in theory happen.) So the question is, with this patch
> applied, do you get these new warnings from sched.c?
it just triggered on one of my boxes:
BUG: at kernel/sched.c:4692 cond_resched_softirq()
[<c03ce128>] cond_resched_softirq+0x5f/0x7b
[<c0369078>] release_sock+0x42/0x81
[<c03693bc>] sk_wait_data+0x57/0x9d
[<c0129a00>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x33
[<c03942ff>] tcp_recvmsg+0x39c/0x973
[<c0368e39>] sock_common_recvmsg+0x3e/0x54
[<c0367903>] sock_aio_read+0x106/0x112
[<c0159b0c>] do_sync_read+0xc8/0x105
[<c0129a00>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x33
[<c0159e82>] vfs_read+0xc1/0x15a
[<c015a7d2>] sys_read+0x41/0x67
[<c0103c10>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
=======================
so tcp_recvmsg() definitely gets into this condition.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists