2009/8/23 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>:
quoted text > Hi,
>
> On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 10:48 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> 2009/7/8 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>:
>> > kmemleak: Add more cond_resched() calls in the scanning thread
>> >
>> > From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> >
>> > Following recent fix to no longer reschedule in the scan_block()
>> > function, the system may become unresponsive with !PREEMPT. This patch
>> > re-adds the cond_resched() call to scan_block() but conditioned by the
>> > allow_resched parameter.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> [...]
>> This still exits in 2.6.31-rc7 if kmemcheck is enabled, and isn't the patch
>> merged into mainline?
>
> Is this kmemcheck or kmemleak (two different things with similar names)?
Sorry, this is kmemleak.
quoted text >
>> [ 0.006569] ACPI: Core revision 20090521
>> [ 0.011476] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10000002
>> [ 0.011558] no locks held by swapper/0.
>> [ 0.011561] Modules linked in:
>> [ 0.011566] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-rc7 #141
>> [ 0.011569] Call Trace:
>> [ 0.011577] [<ffffffff81070bb7>] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x22/0x24
>> [ 0.011584] [<ffffffff8103d4ba>] __schedule_bug+0x77/0x7c
>> [ 0.011590] [<ffffffff812da32f>] schedule+0xd6/0xa3f
>> [ 0.011596] [<ffffffff810e4b9b>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xe2/0x158
>> [ 0.011600] [<ffffffff810717e2>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x12d/0x158
>> [ 0.011604] [<ffffffff8107181a>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
>> [ 0.011609] [<ffffffff8103e3f0>] __cond_resched+0x29/0x47
>> [ 0.011614] [<ffffffff812dae24>] _cond_resched+0x29/0x34
>> [ 0.011620] [<ffffffff811da90a>] acpi_ps_complete_op+0x246/0x25c
>> [ 0.011625] [<ffffffff811db024>] acpi_ps_parse_loop+0x704/0x860
>> [ 0.011630] [<ffffffff811da200>] acpi_ps_parse_aml+0x9f/0x2de
>> [ 0.011635] [<ffffffff811d9181>] acpi_ns_one_complete_parse+0x101/0x11c
>> [ 0.011640] [<ffffffff811d91bd>] acpi_ns_parse_table+0x21/0x3c
>> [ 0.011645] [<ffffffff811d67e3>] acpi_ns_load_table+0x4f/0x94
>> [ 0.011650] [<ffffffff811dd14a>] acpi_load_tables+0x72/0x133
>> [ 0.011656] [<ffffffff8153c592>] acpi_early_init+0x60/0xf5
>> [ 0.011661] [<ffffffff81519cb0>] start_kernel+0x38b/0x3a0
>> [ 0.011666] [<ffffffff81519140>] ? early_idt_handler+0x0/0x71
>> [ 0.011670] [<ffffffff815192a3>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xaa/0xae
>> [ 0.011675] [<ffffffff8151939e>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xf7/0x106
>
> I looked at the traces and there are no kmemleak calls. It's either that
> kmemleak is disabled or the error is not on a kmemleak path. It looks
> more like an ACPI bug to me.
>
> Can you try only with slab debugging enabled (without kmemleak or
> kmemcheck)? IIRC someone else reported a similar issue a few weeks ago.
If I only disabled kmemleak, the kernel does not print the warning, so I suppose
it is related with kmemleak.
Attachment is the .config, hope it is usable to help to fix the warning.
Thanks.
--
Lei Ming
