Re: [2.6.25-rc5-mm1] BUG: spinlock bad magic early during boot

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:54:43 +0100
Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc> wrote:

> Am 11.03.2008 09:14 schrieb Andrew Morton:
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.25-rc5/2.6.25-rc5-mm1/
> 
> This still complains during startup:
> 
> <6>[    0.063442] Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.
> <0>[    0.068233] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, swapper/0
> <0>[    0.068996]  lock: c2c19380, .magic: 00000000, .owner: swapper/0, .owner_cpu: 0
> <4>[    0.069227] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc5-mm1-testing #1
> <4>[    0.069369]  [spin_bug+124/135] spin_bug+0x7c/0x87
> <4>[    0.069563]  [_raw_spin_unlock+25/113] _raw_spin_unlock+0x19/0x71
> <4>[    0.069752]  [_spin_unlock+29/60] _spin_unlock+0x1d/0x3c
> <4>[    0.069941]  [mnt_want_write+98/136] mnt_want_write+0x62/0x88
> <4>[    0.070131]  [sys_mkdirat+134/214] sys_mkdirat+0x86/0xd6
> <4>[    0.070322]  [clean_path+22/74] ? clean_path+0x16/0x4a
> <4>[    0.070558]  [kfree+216/236] ? kfree+0xd8/0xec
> <4>[    0.070793]  [sys_mkdir+16/18] sys_mkdir+0x10/0x12
> <4>[    0.070995]  [do_name+274/435] do_name+0x112/0x1b3
> <4>[    0.071184]  [write_buffer+29/44] write_buffer+0x1d/0x2c
> <4>[    0.071371]  [flush_window+100/179] flush_window+0x64/0xb3
> <4>[    0.071558]  [unpack_to_rootfs+1580/2233] unpack_to_rootfs+0x62c/0x8b9
> <4>[    0.071747]  [populate_rootfs+32/265] populate_rootfs+0x20/0x109
> <4>[    0.071995]  [alternative_instructions+339/344] ? alternative_instructions+0x153/0x158
> <4>[    0.072235]  [start_kernel+835/853] start_kernel+0x343/0x355
> <4>[    0.072422]  [i386_start_kernel+8/10] i386_start_kernel+0x8/0xa
> <4>[    0.072610]  =======================
> <6>[    0.072808] Unpacking initramfs... done
> 
> System comes up fine, though. Not sure whom to CC.

Dave, methinks.

> Machine's a dual-core Pentium D running a 32 bit kernel.
> Let me know if you want me to provide more information or test anything.

I thought we already fixed this, actually.  Maybe we just talked about it
a bit?