From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755571Ab0CHUCp (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:02:45 -0500 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:47267 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755545Ab0CHUCi (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 15:02:38 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo Subject: Re: odd lockdep messages In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:43:51 +0100." <1268073831.4997.69.camel@laptop> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <24605.1268073053@localhost> <1268073831.4997.69.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1268078410_3874P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:00:10 -0500 Message-ID: <6025.1268078410@localhost> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 128.173.14.107 localhost Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=neutral-1, source=Fixed, refid=n/a, actions=MAILHURDLE SPF TAG X-Junkmail-Info: (45) HELO_LOCALHOST X-Junkmail-Status: score=45/50, host=dagger.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020209.4B95574C.011A,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-09-22 00:05:22, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=multiengine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1268078410_3874P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:43:51 +0100, Peter Zijlstra said: > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 13:30 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > (Not sure when this started, just noticed it... Wasn't present in > > 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210, is in 2.6.33-mmotm0302 and -mmotm0304). > > > > Seen in dmesg: > > [ 1.012163] BUG: key ffff88011efbf500 not in .data! > > [ 1.012284] BUG: key ffff88011efbf548 not in .data! > Can that be wreckage due to the new per-cpu stuff? > > Its a message printed when the below function fails, and that per-cpu > stuff seems the one most likely to break, given that there was quite a > lot of churn in that department recently. Would it make sense to stick some printk's on the 'return 1' cases > /* > * static variable? > */ > if ((addr >= start) && (addr < end)) > return 1; > > if (arch_is_kernel_data(addr)) > return 1; > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > /* > * percpu var? > */ > for_each_possible_cpu(i) { > start = (unsigned long) &__per_cpu_start + per_cpu_offset(i); > end = (unsigned long) &__per_cpu_start + PERCPU_ENOUGH_ROOM > + per_cpu_offset(i); > > if ((addr >= start) && (addr < end)) > return 1; or am I setting myself up for printk spam from hell if I do that? --==_Exmh_1268078410_3874P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFLlVdKcC3lWbTT17ARAjvPAJ9YfG8JU0KNtNx6lIsA6QFppNBMNACcDf0v ytjRl0zXJKHhKn2CM1rt0k4= =mUGu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1268078410_3874P--