On 6 Nov 02 at 23:09, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>
> I'm getting really nervous :-( Is kdb able to track who caused unbalanced
> in_atomic() incrementation?
>
> After more than week of stable system I run simple
> "arp vanicka.vc.cvut.cz" few minutes ago, and after arp output I got
> sleeping function called from illegal context, quickly followed by two
> scheduling while atomic, and finally it died because of userspace faults
> when in_atomic() is != 0 are treated as kernel ones...
>
> As I saw nobody else reporting this or simillar problem, I'll start
> looking at e100 driver I use. Maybe it did not occured because of I
> was running -acX kernels since 25th Oct until yesterday. Anybody knows?
-acX use special stack for hardware IRQs, and preempt_count() is
copied only from task -> hwirq, not other way around (because of it
assumes that preempt_count() is same on exit as it was on enter...).
That's probably reason why -acX was working for me almost two weeks,
but as soon as I returned back to non-ac, it died.
Petr Vandrovec
vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:46 EST