Re: [GIT PULL v2] sched: Make sleep inside atomic detection work on !PREEMPT

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 03:30:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Ingo,
> > 
> > Please pull the sched/core branch that can be found at:
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/random-tracing.git
> > 	sched/core
> 
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> I have added Randy's ack on the last patch. To get it, please pull the v2 in
> the following branch:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/random-tracing.git
>        sched/core-v2
> 
> There are no other changes.

Hm, this triggers such warnings now:

Detected 2010.217 MHz processor.
Marking TSC unstable due to TSCs unsynchronized
Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 4022.95 BogoMIPS (lpj=6700723)
pid_max: default: 4096 minimum: 301
BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002
no locks held by swapper/0.
Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.0.0-rc5-tip-01401-ga7adf5f-dirty #141020
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff81ddb3b0>] __schedule_bug+0x60/0x65
 [<ffffffff81dee803>] schedule+0x953/0x980
 [<ffffffff81571e30>] ? serial8250_console_putchar+0x30/0x40
 [<ffffffff81df177b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x50
 [<ffffffff8107882a>] __cond_resched+0x2a/0x40
 [<ffffffff81dee8e2>] _cond_resched+0x32/0x40
 [<ffffffff81110ba8>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x1b8/0x880
 [<ffffffff81df23ce>] ? common_interrupt+0xe/0x13
 [<ffffffff81080649>] ? vprintk+0x359/0x530
 [<ffffffff8113b4e7>] slob_new_pages+0x17/0x80
 [<ffffffff8113bd13>] __kmalloc_node+0xa3/0x270
 [<ffffffff81ddb6d5>] ? printk+0x41/0x43
 [<ffffffff82738420>] pidmap_init+0x80/0xbf
 [<ffffffff8272aa54>] start_kernel+0x28b/0x300
 [<ffffffff8272a2ee>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xfe/0x102
 [<ffffffff8272a3e2>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xf0/0xf7
Security Framework initialized
AppArmor: AppArmor initialized
Mount-cache hash table entries: 256
Initializing cgroup subsys cpuacct

Not sure we want to warn about schedule during early init, or can it 
cause problems and should thus be fixed? I bet there's more such 
instances.

Thanks,

	Ingo