Re: BUG(): sched.c: Line 944 - 2.5.35

OK, I will try this tomorrow morning

Luigi

On 16 Sep 2002, Robert Love wrote:

> Date: 16 Sep 2002 14:42:13 -0400
> From: Robert Love <[e-mail]>
> To: Adam J. Richter <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: BUG(): sched.c: Line 944 - 2.5.35
>
> On Mon, 2002-09-16 at 12:36, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>
> > 	When I see this problem at boot, preempt_count() returns 0x4000000
> > (PREEMPT_ACTIVE) and kernel_locked() returns 0.
> >
> > 	I don't understand the semantics of PREEMPT_ACTIVE to know
> > whether to
> >
> > 	(1) change the test back to using in_interrupt instead of in_atomic, or
> > 	(2) change the definition of in_atomic(), or
> > 	(3) look for a bug somewhere else.
>
> There are two problems: First, PREEMPT_ACTIVE is indeed set on entry to
> schedule() from preempt_schedule() so we need to check for that too.
> Second, the BUG() is catching a bit of issues... you want something
> like:
>
> -	if (unlikely(in_atomic()))
> -		BUG();
> +	if (unlikely(in_atomic() && preempt_count() != PREEMPT_ACTIVE)) {
> +		printk(KERN_ERR "schedule() called while non-atomic!\n");
> +		show_stack(NULL);
> +	}
>
> I will send a patch to Linus.
>
> > 	However, I know experimentally that changing the test back to
> > using in_interrupt() results in a possibly unrelated BUG() at line 279
> > of rmap.c:
>
> This is unrelated.
>
> 	Robert Love
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>