[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f19298770901181022gf5a9ea2j154a2fea3ef4cf74@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:22:48 +0300
From: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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
Hi.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 05:00, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> 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?
Sorry for the delay. I was busy and forgot about this issue.
The warning does not show in -rc2 any more. Was it fixed, or
just shadowed by something?
--
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