[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234342189.23438.113.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:49:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc3: BUG: scheduling while atomic: udevd/917/0x10000100
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> There's a fourth possibility:
>
> - Given that it's udevd that does it - maybe we leaked a softirq preempt
> count in some rare sysfs file, and it did not get discovered until the
> next innocent piece of kernel code preempted?
>
> But i thought lockdep would already warn if we exited a syscall with locks
> held or with a preempt count elevated - Peter?
>>From a quick look it only checks task->lockdep_depth, in
lockdep_sys_exit().
--
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