Re: Problems with 2.6.17-rt8

Bill Huey
2006-08-03T21:18:10Z

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 04:54:05PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 13:22 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> > free_pages_bulk is definitely being called inside of an atomic.
> > I force this stack trace when the in_atomic() test is true at the
> > beginning of the function.
> >
> >
> > [ 29.362863] Call Trace:
> > [ 29.367107] <ffffffff802a82ac>{free_pages_bulk+86}
> > [ 29.373122] <ffffffff80261726>{_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+44}
> > [ 29.380233] <ffffffff802a8778>{__free_pages_ok+428}
> > [ 29.386336] <ffffffff8024f101>{free_hot_page+25}
> > [ 29.392165] <ffffffff8022e298>{__free_pages+41}
> > [ 29.397898] <ffffffff806b604d>{__free_pages_bootmem+174}
> > [ 29.404457] <ffffffff806b5266>{free_all_bootmem_core+253}
> > [ 29.411112] <ffffffff806b5340>{free_all_bootmem_node+9}
> > [ 29.417574] <ffffffff806b254e>{numa_free_all_bootmem+61}
> > [ 29.424122] <ffffffff8046e96e>{_etext+0}
> > [ 29.429224] <ffffffff806b1392>{mem_init+128}
> > [ 29.434691] <ffffffff806a17ab>{start_kernel+377}
> > [ 29.440520] <ffffffff806a129b>{_sinittext+667}
> > [ 29.446669] ---------------------------
> > [ 29.450963] | preempt count: 00000001 ]
> > [ 29.455257] | 1-level deep critical section nesting:
> > [ 29.460732] ----------------------------------------
> > [ 29.466212] .. [<ffffffff806a169a>] .... start_kernel+0x68/0x221
> > [ 29.472815] .....[<ffffffff806a129b>] .. ( <= _sinittext+0x29b/0x2a2)
> > [ 29.480056]
>
> Perhaps you could put in that in_atomic check at the start of each of
> these functions and point to where it is a problem. Perhaps a spinlock
> is taken that was real and not a mutex.

Yeah, that's my thought as well. I'm going to do what you suggest now.

bill