From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com (e2.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e2.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD419B6EED for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:49:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o5SGa9Yp017085 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:36:09 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o5SGn8uU122110 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:49:08 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o5SGn70k011285 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:49:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:49:06 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x00000002 Message-ID: <20100628164906.GA6667@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20100609215229.GA12774@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1276125608.1962.0.camel@pasglop> <20100610010854.GA11432@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20100610010854.GA11432@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, anton@samba.org Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 06:08:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:20:08AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 14:52 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I get the following during boot on a 16 CPU Power box. Thoughts? > > > (/proc/config attached) > > > > Wow... looks like the preempt count of the idle task got busted or > > something ... how reproduceable ? Something like a record of previous > > interrupts might be useful.. > > I have seen it only once, but it did get my attention. I will try running > it again this evening when/if kernel-ml8 is free again. 2.6.35-rc2, > I should have mentioned. And it does appear to be reproducible perhaps 50% of boots running CONFIG_PREEMPT on kernel-ml8. I have not yet seen it on any other system. Do you have a patch to instrument the interrupts so as to get the info you need, or should I improvise? Thanx, Paul