From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: scheduling while atomic acpi_idle_enter_bm Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:02:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <43e72e890910271640n7fafc8edpc14143fcfca7df60@mail.gmail.com> <20091027165345.3237d3df@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from vms173005pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.5]:50096 "EHLO vms173005pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755702AbZKCDDn (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:03:43 -0500 In-reply-to: <20091027165345.3237d3df@infradead.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > I get this when modprobing some module I am working on. I figured it > > was the module's fault but the EIP points to something else so I am > > not sure. I get the following repeating about 4 times on 2.6.32-rc5: > > > you can get this if your own code leaves interrupts disabled in a > kernel thread and then lets the cpu go idle... Unclear. acpi_enter_idle_bm() assumes that it is entered with irqs enabled, and so it we unconditionally disables IRQs. Then we unconditionally re-enable them. The problem seems to be that right after we enable them, we find that they are actually disabled, perhaps as a side-effect of SMM. Is your machine a Dell, per chance? Please test the patches in this bug report: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14101 thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center