Re: linux-next: Tree for December 11
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Jan 07 2009 - 11:51:17 EST
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
>
> Almost a month later, the warning is still there, and now also in Linus' git.
> Am I the only one who sees it?
Possibly. But that may be because most people don't have DEBUG_PREEMPT.
> [ 0.004150] WARNING: at kernel/sched.c:4435 sub_preempt_count+0xae/0xc0()
> [ 0.004247] Hardware name: HP Compaq nx7300 (GB848ES#ACB)
> [ 0.004342] Modules linked in:
> [ 0.004477] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.28-06859-gede6f5a #179
> [ 0.004575] Call Trace:
> [ 0.004672] [<c012fbe6>] warn_slowpath+0x86/0xa0
> [ 0.004770] [<c014e99b>] ? tick_check_oneshot_change+0x4b/0x100
> [ 0.004868] [<c046dc00>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x10/0x30
> [ 0.004963] [<c047045e>] sub_preempt_count+0xae/0xc0
> [ 0.005060] [<c0134787>] _local_bh_enable+0x27/0xa0
Hmm. _local_bh_enable() would make the preempt_count go negative or fall
below 1 (with kernel lock held).
> [ 0.005155] [<c0134ac7>] __do_softirq+0xf7/0x150
> [ 0.005250] [<c01349d0>] ? __do_softirq+0x0/0x150
> [ 0.005345] <IRQ> [<c014ec2e>] ? tick_nohz_update_jiffies+0xe/0x50
> [ 0.005488] [<c013494f>] ? irq_exit+0x7f/0x90
> [ 0.005584] [<c0104f23>] ? do_IRQ+0xa3/0x120
> [ 0.005678] [<c01038a7>] ? common_interrupt+0x27/0x2c
> [ 0.005773] [<c013007b>] ? try_acquire_console_sem+0x1b/0x30
> [ 0.005872] [<c05f7378>] ? check_bugs+0xb8/0xe0
> [ 0.005967] [<c05ef98a>] ? start_kernel+0x25a/0x2f0
.. and it happens early on, when we take an interrupt in check_bugs.
Are we ready to enable interrupts there? Maybe the page fault we took (on
purpose) enabled interrupts and we now take the irq much too early.
Or maybe the initial kernel lock didn't set preempt_count to 1.
Ingo, any ideas?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/