Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:10:08 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [rfcomm_run] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 95 at kernel/sched/core.c:7312 __might_sleep() |
| |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:03:25PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 09:06:21PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > FYI, this bug seems still there on v3.18-rc2. > > > > Oh, right, I commented out that patch and the audit one because I was > > waiting for some feedback. Lemme go prod people. > > One more warning, looks like triggered by thermal_apic_exit. Authors CCed. > > [ 29.107798] Running tests on trace events: > [ 29.108302] Testing event thermal_apic_exit: > [ 29.143786] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 29.144489] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 101 at kernel/sched/core.c:7187 __might_sleep+0xb9/0x100() > [ 29.145781] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<c1e62e65>] event_test_thread+0x58/0x92 > [ 29.147139] Modules linked in: > [ 29.147604] CPU: 1 PID: 101 Comm: test-events Not tainted 3.17.0-rc6-01872-ga0d2c46 #17 > [ 29.148646] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.7.5-20140531_083030-gandalf 04/01/2014 > [ 29.149969] 00000001 00000000 ffffffff cbc4fe5c c17ef50f cbc4fea4 00000001 00000065 > [ 29.151143] cbc4fe78 c10689d7 00001c13 c10a5f59 00000001 00000000 00000029 cbc4fe90 > [ 29.152343] c1068a1b 00000009 cbc4fe88 c1b5cc24 cbc4fea4 cbc4fec4 c10a5f59 c1b5c9b0 > [ 29.153511] Call Trace: > [ 29.153859] [<c17ef50f>] dump_stack+0x78/0xa8 > [ 29.154448] [<c10689d7>] warn_slowpath_common+0x87/0xa0 > [ 29.155119] [<c10a5f59>] ? __might_sleep+0xb9/0x100 > [ 29.155706] [<c1068a1b>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x2b/0x30 > [ 29.164357] [<c10a5f59>] __might_sleep+0xb9/0x100 > [ 29.164935] [<c1e62e65>] ? event_test_thread+0x58/0x92 > [ 29.165541] [<c1e62e65>] ? event_test_thread+0x58/0x92 > [ 29.166154] [<c17f8d4c>] down_read+0x1c/0x50 > [ 29.166660] [<c1083a6f>] exit_signals+0x1f/0x1d0 > [ 29.167215] [<c106bc1f>] do_exit+0x1bf/0x13a0 > [ 29.167748] [<c1e62e0d>] ? event_test_stuff+0x6c/0x6c > [ 29.168434] [<c109bea8>] ? kthread_should_stop+0x8/0x20 > [ 29.169145] [<c1e62e0d>] ? event_test_stuff+0x6c/0x6c > [ 29.169829] [<c109c3d4>] kthread+0xe4/0x110 > [ 29.170397] [<c1e62e0d>] ? event_test_stuff+0x6c/0x6c > [ 29.171082] [<c10d0000>] ? push_dl_task+0x50/0x5a0 > [ 29.171759] [<c17fbf21>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x21/0x30 > [ 29.172496] [<c109c2f0>] ? insert_kthread_work+0x110/0x110 > [ 29.173234] ---[ end trace 12bb28a4b269a09b ]--- > [ 29.173913] test-events (101) used greatest stack depth: 6712 bytes left
Hmm, confusing that, did that tree include: fe0e01c77dd9 ("tracing: Robustify wait loop")
?
| |