bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[David L]

I'm seeing the message:

bad: scheduling while atomic!

I see this dozens of times when I'm writing to a nand flash device using a 
vendor-provided driver from Compulab in 2.6.8.1.  Does this mean the driver 
has a bug or is incompatible with the preemptive configuration option?  How 
bad is "bad"?  Should I turn of the preemption option, ignore the message, 
or what?

Thanks...

                      David

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 516 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> I'm seeing the message:
> 
> bad: scheduling while atomic!
> 
> I see this dozens of times when I'm writing to a nand flash device using a 
> vendor-provided driver from Compulab in 2.6.8.1.  Does this mean the driver 
> has a bug or is incompatible with the preemptive configuration option?  How 
> bad is "bad"?  Should I turn of the preemption option, ignore the message, 
> or what?

can you post the sourcecode of the driver? it needs fixing...


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[David L]

[snip]
>On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> > I'm seeing the message:
> >
> > bad: scheduling while atomic!
> >
> > I see this dozens of times when I'm writing to a nand flash device using 
>a
> > vendor-provided driver from Compulab in 2.6.8.1.  Does this mean the 
>driver
> > has a bug or is incompatible with the preemptive configuration option?  
>How
> > bad is "bad"?  Should I turn of the preemption option, ignore the 
>message,
> > or what?
>
>can you post the sourcecode of the driver? it needs fixing...
It's on-line at:

http://www.compulab.co.il/686-developer.htm

under "Linux - kernel, drivers and patches".

After unzipping, it's in:

Drivers & Patches 2.6/Flash Disk/cl_fdrv.tgz

Cheers...

                 David

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0700, David L wrote:
> [snip]
> >On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> >> I'm seeing the message:
> >>
> >> bad: scheduling while atomic!
> >>
> >> I see this dozens of times when I'm writing to a nand flash device using 
> >a
> >> vendor-provided driver from Compulab in 2.6.8.1.  Does this mean the 
> >driver
> >> has a bug or is incompatible with the preemptive configuration option?  
> >How
> >> bad is "bad"?  Should I turn of the preemption option, ignore the 
> >message,
> >> or what?
> >
> >can you post the sourcecode of the driver? it needs fixing...
> It's on-line at:
> 
> http://www.compulab.co.il/686-developer.htm
> 
> under "Linux - kernel, drivers and patches".
> 
> After unzipping, it's in:
> 
> Drivers & Patches 2.6/Flash Disk/cl_fdrv.tgz

that's only part of the source though... can you point at the full one ?

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[David L]

> > >On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> > >> I'm seeing the message:
> > >>
> > >> bad: scheduling while atomic!
> > >>
> > >> I see this dozens of times when I'm writing to a nand flash device 
>using
> > >a
> > >> vendor-provided driver from Compulab in 2.6.8.1.  Does this mean the
> > >driver
> > >> has a bug or is incompatible with the preemptive configuration 
>option?
> > >How
> > >> bad is "bad"?  Should I turn of the preemption option, ignore the
> > >message,
> > >> or what?
> > >
> > >can you post the sourcecode of the driver? it needs fixing...
> > It's on-line at:
> >
> > http://www.compulab.co.il/686-developer.htm
> >
> > under "Linux - kernel, drivers and patches".
> >
> > After unzipping, it's in:
> >
> > Drivers & Patches 2.6/Flash Disk/cl_fdrv.tgz
>
>that's only part of the source though... can you point at the full one ?

I'm pretty sure that's all the source... there was some documentation that 
told how to edit the drivers/block/Kconfig and Makefile to actually build 
it... below are the instructions.  With just what was in that directory, I 
was able to use their driver.

Cheers...

                   David

Copy the file cl_fdrv.tar.gz into the directory <kernel_src>/drivers/block
Then run
cd <kernel_src>/drivers/block
tar xfz  cl_fdrv.tar.gz
Then open the file <kernel_source>/drivers/block/Kconfig
and, after line menu "Block devices"
add 3 following lines

config 686CORE_FLASH
	tristate "686CORE flash drivers"
	source "drivers/block/cl_fdrv/Kconfig"

and save the file.

Then open the file
<kernel_source>/drivers/block/Makefile
and, after line

  obj-y	:= elevator.o ll_rw_blk.o ioctl.o genhd.o scsi_ioctl.o

add 3 following lines

  # ifdef CONFIG_686CORE_FLASH
        obj-y   += cl_fdrv/
  # endif

and save the file.

Run make gconfig (or any other configuration option) and the selection of 
the flash driver will be available at “Device Drivers” >> “Block Devices”.

Run make bzImage from the directory <kernel_source> to finish building the 
kernel.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 04:19:58PM -0700, David L wrote:
> >that's only part of the source though... can you point at the full one ?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's all the source... there was some documentation that 

the sources for CLlogic2 and CLlogic3 are missing....

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> I'm seeing the message:
> 
> bad: scheduling while atomic!

It indicates a kernel bug, which could range from harmless to very bad.

Usually that message is accompanied by a stack trace, can you provide a
real log excerpt?

Lee

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[David L]

[snip]
>On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> > I'm seeing the message:
> >
> > bad: scheduling while atomic!
>
>It indicates a kernel bug, which could range from harmless to very bad.
>
>Usually that message is accompanied by a stack trace, can you provide a
>real log excerpt?
Is this what you need?

bad: scheduling while atomic!
[<c02a930f>]
[<c01f8c47>]
[<c01e6aea>]
[<c0120211>]
[<c01e6b30>]
[<c010f9a0>]
[<c02a8ff9>]
[<c010f9a0>]
[<c0120040>]
[<c0123983>]
[<c0123900>]
[<c0103b25>]

(or do you need config.gz and/or something else to make sense of it?)

Cheers...

           David

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

Re: bad: scheduling while atomic!: how bad?

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 15:33 -0700, David L wrote:
> [snip]
> >On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 14:59 -0700, David L wrote:
> > > I'm seeing the message:
> > >
> > > bad: scheduling while atomic!
> >
> >It indicates a kernel bug, which could range from harmless to very bad.
> >
> >Usually that message is accompanied by a stack trace, can you provide a
> >real log excerpt?
> Is this what you need?
> 
> bad: scheduling while atomic!

No, I missed the part about a vendor provided driver.  You need to
report the problem to the vendor or provide the driver source.

Lee