[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090114222550.80fb1bb2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:25:50 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Norbert Preining <preining@...ic.at>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
David Graham <david.graham@...el.com>,
Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc1-wl gives WARNING on ich8lan
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:15:46 +0100 Norbert Preining <preining@...ic.at> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> (please cc)
(please cc right lists!)
> 2.6.29-rc1-wl (wireless testing) gives me:
>
> [ 367.804080] WARNING: at drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c:412 e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0x35/0xcc()
> [ 367.804085] Hardware name: VGN-Z11VN_B
> [ 367.804088] e1000e mutex contention. Owned by pid 3781
> [ 367.804092] Modules linked in: binfmt_misc rfcomm l2cap kvm isofs zlib_inflate fuse dm_crypt dm_mod firewire_sbp2 loop arc4 iwlagn iwlcore rfkill joydev firewire_ohci mac80211 firewire_core crc_itu_t cfg80211 btusb sony_laptop tpm_infineon video backlight
> [ 367.804143] Pid: 8, comm: events/1 Not tainted 2.6.29-rc1-wl #1
> [ 367.804148] Call Trace:
> [ 367.804158] [<ffffffff80236441>] warn_slowpath+0xd8/0x112
> [ 367.804169] [<ffffffff8051152f>] _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x31/0x3d
> [ 367.804178] [<ffffffff802324f9>] try_to_wake_up+0x168/0x17a
> [ 367.804186] [<ffffffff8023250b>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x9
> [ 367.804196] [<ffffffff80323438>] delay_tsc+0x0/0xc8
> [ 367.804204] [<ffffffff8022c48d>] dequeue_entity+0xf/0x102
> [ 367.804211] [<ffffffff803a12a4>] e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0x35/0xcc
> [ 367.804219] [<ffffffff803a5c0b>] e1000e_read_phy_reg_bm+0x39/0xbe
> [ 367.804227] [<ffffffff803a5ee7>] e1000e_phy_has_link_generic+0x50/0xcc
> [ 367.804234] [<ffffffff8022c48d>] dequeue_entity+0xf/0x102
> [ 367.804242] [<ffffffff803ad593>] e1000_watchdog_task+0x0/0x6ef
> [ 367.804249] [<ffffffff803a4d25>] e1000e_check_for_copper_link+0x24/0x86
> [ 367.804257] [<ffffffff8023f05e>] lock_timer_base+0x26/0x4b
> [ 367.804265] [<ffffffff803aa186>] e1000_has_link+0x40/0xc1
> [ 367.804272] [<ffffffff803ad5ca>] e1000_watchdog_task+0x37/0x6ef
> [ 367.804280] [<ffffffff803ad593>] e1000_watchdog_task+0x0/0x6ef
> [ 367.804289] [<ffffffff80245058>] run_workqueue+0x87/0x122
> [ 367.804296] [<ffffffff802451cb>] worker_thread+0xd8/0xe7
> [ 367.804304] [<ffffffff802487a8>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
> [ 367.804311] [<ffffffff802450f3>] worker_thread+0x0/0xe7
> [ 367.804318] [<ffffffff802450f3>] worker_thread+0x0/0xe7
> [ 367.804324] [<ffffffff8024848f>] kthread+0x47/0x73
> [ 367.804332] [<ffffffff8020c6aa>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
> [ 367.804338] [<ffffffff80248448>] kthread+0x0/0x73
> [ 367.804344] [<ffffffff8020c6a0>] child_rip+0x0/0x20
> [ 367.804349] ---[ end trace 608ec83548aefe5d ]---
>
> Should I be concerned?
>
I don't think so. It looks like it's just some developer debug code:
if (!mutex_trylock(&nvm_mutex)) {
WARN(1, KERN_ERR "e1000e mutex contention. Owned by process "
"%s (pid %d), required by process %s (pid %d)\n",
nvm_owner_name, nvm_owner_pid,
current->comm, current->pid);
mutex_lock(&nvm_mutex);
}
guys, is this actually indicative of a bug? An unexpected state?
If not, I'd suggest that this code simply be removed, or downgraded
into a developer-only debug thing. We don't want the kernel to be
spewing scary things at people.
--
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