[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090114020040.GA19806@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:00:40 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Laurent Riffard <laurent.riffard@...e.fr>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: next-20090107: WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:4435 sub_preempt_count
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:49:45AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > One more instance of http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123134586202636&w=2
> > Added Ingo Molnar to CC.
>
> added Nick on Cc:. Nick, it's about:
>
> > commit 7317d7b87edb41a9135e30be1ec3f7ef817c53dd
> > Author: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
> > Date: Tue Sep 30 20:50:27 2008 +1000
> >
> > sched: improve preempt debugging
>
> causing a seemingly spurious warning.
I don't know how it is spurious... Presumably the sequence _would_ have
caused preempt count to go negative if the bkl were not held...
__do_softirq does a __local_bh_disable on entry, and it seems like the
_local_bh_enable on exit is what causes this warning. So something is
unbalanced somehow. Or is it some weird thing we do in early boot that
I am missing?
Can you put in some printks around these functions in early boot to
get an idea of what preempt_count is doing?
--
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