From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mateusz Berezecki <mateuszb@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "scheduling while atomic" ?
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:30:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1121175049.6917.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42D3C37C.6040401@gmail.com>
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 15:19 +0200, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
> Hi LKML,
>
> What does the message saying "scheduling while atomic" mean?
It means that you called schedule with preemption turned off, which
could be by grabbing a spin_lock.
> The kernel prints a stack backtrace after this message appears so I
> suppose this is
> not a good behaviour. I am finishing an open source driver, and I need
> to do all of this
> locking stuff, etc. and this really makes me wonder what I am doing wrong.
>
> here is some part of a backtrace...
>
> scheduling while atomic: insmod/0x00000001/12692
> [<c03e7352>] schedule+0x632/0x640
> [<c0119bb1>] __wake_up_common+0x41/0x70
> [<c03e74df>] wait_for_completion+0x8f/0xf0
> [<c0119b50>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x20
> [<c0119b50>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x20
> [<c012e2dd>] queue_work+0x8d/0xa0
> [<c012e070>] __call_usermodehelper+0x0/0x70
> [<c012e1a5>] call_usermodehelper_keys+0xc5/0xd0
> [<c012e070>] __call_usermodehelper+0x0/0x70
> [<c020c028>] sprintf+0x28/0x30
> [<c020955d>] kobject_hotplug+0x29d/0x310
> [<c019fc6e>] sysfs_create_link+0x3e/0x60
> [<c028b601>] class_device_add+0x161/0x1e0
> [<c036f38e>] netdev_register_sysfs+0x3e/0x100
> [<c03650db>] netdev_run_todo+0x1eb/0x220
> [<c0364dce>] register_netdev+0x5e/0x90
>
> I enable a lock at the beginning of device attach routine
> and I disable it at the end. Whats wrong with it?
When you say enable a lock, do you mean that you grabbed a lock? Now if
you grabbed a spinlock, it is really bad to then call schedule, since a
another process that will grab that same spinlock will deadlock the CPU
(on an SMP system). Since you are using locks (I'm also assuming that
you are using spinlocks) I assume that you will be running this on a
CONFIG_PREEMPT or SMP system.
So the fix will be to release the lock before calling something that
will schedule, and regrab it afterwards.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-12 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-12 13:19 "scheduling while atomic" ? Mateusz Berezecki
2005-07-12 13:30 ` Richard B. Johnson
2005-07-12 13:30 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2005-07-12 14:08 ` Mateusz Berezecki
2005-07-12 14:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-07-12 14:22 ` Mateusz Berezecki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1121175049.6917.19.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mateuszb@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.