From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:47:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:47:15 -0400 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:2311 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:46:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3B8041E4.8D02A20B@zip.com.au> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:47:00 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.8-ac7 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ptb@it.uc3m.es CC: linux kernel Subject: Re: scheduling with io_lock held in 2.4.6 In-Reply-To: "from (env: ptb) at Aug 19, 2001 06:38:18 pm" <200108191858.UAA01216@nbd.it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Peter T. Breuer" wrote: > > I am now fairly certain that the schedule occured while > blkdev_release_request was in a completely innocuous line > No - from your earlier trace it looks like what happened was that you dereferenced a bad address in blkdev_release_request(): Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 00002004 But when the kernel processes this error the last thing it tries to do is to kill off the offending process by calling do_exit(). But do_exit() calls schedule(). So if you take an oops in interrupt context you'll basically always see the "scheduling in interrupt" thing. So don't worry about it. You need to find out why you're dereferencing a bad pointer in blkdev_release_request(). -