Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...>, <linux-usb@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Date: Friday, April 18, 2008 - 3:50 am

Another runtime warning on the t61p:


Brought up 2 CPUs
Total of 2 processors activated (9583.80 BogoMIPS).
CPU0 attaching sched-domain:
 domain 0: span 00000000,00000003
  groups: 00000000,00000001 00000000,00000002
  domain 1: span 00000000,00000003
   groups: 00000000,00000003
CPU1 attaching sched-domain:
 domain 0: span 00000000,00000003
  groups: 00000000,00000002 00000000,00000001
  domain 1: span 00000000,00000003
   groups: 00000000,00000003
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2677 check_flags+0x84/0x11f()
Modules linked in:
Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-mm1 #15

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff8105f7ec>] ? print_modules+0x88/0x8f
 [<ffffffff81037b55>] warn_on_slowpath+0x58/0x7f
 [<ffffffff81056143>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 [<ffffffff810560b7>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1d/0x9c
 [<ffffffff81056143>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 [<ffffffff810560b7>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1d/0x9c
 [<ffffffff81056143>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 [<ffffffff81058576>] ? __lock_acquire+0x809/0x893
 [<ffffffff810560b7>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1d/0x9c
 [<ffffffff81056143>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 [<ffffffff812b94d1>] ? __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x0/0x81
 [<ffffffff8105627e>] check_flags+0x84/0x11f
 [<ffffffff81058914>] lock_acquire+0x54/0xb4
 [<ffffffff812b9515>] __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x81
 [<ffffffff8100a2c2>] ? mwait_idle+0x0/0x49
 [<ffffffff812b9561>] atomic_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
 [<ffffffff8100a228>] __exit_idle+0x27/0x29
 [<ffffffff8100b33c>] cpu_idle+0xdf/0xf7
 [<ffffffff812b10da>] start_secondary+0xb2/0xb4

---[ end trace 93d72a36b9146f22 ]---
possible reason: unannotated irqs-on.
irq event stamp: 34
hardirqs last  enabled at (33): [<ffffffff812b63f0>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
hardirqs last disabled at (34): [<ffffffff81056143>] trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
softirqs last  enabled at (32): [<ffffffff8103cfe8>] __do_softirq+0xc5/0xce
softirqs last disabled at (25): [<ffffffff8100d32c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
calling  init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list+0x0/0x1b()
initcall init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list+0x0/0x1b() returned 0 after 0 msecs
calling  net_ns_init+0x0/0x12a()
net_namespace: 1352 bytes
initcall net_ns_init+0x0/0x12a() returned 0 after 0 msecs
calling  cpufreq_tsc+0x0/0x16()

dmesg: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/x.txt
config: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/config-t61p.txt

but it lumbered to a login prompt, which is more than good enough for this
pile of dung.

The number of runtime warnings, compile errors and runtime failures which
have been added since 2.6.25-rc8-mm2 is astonishing.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 7:03 pm)
2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Mon Apr 28, 12:42 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz..., (Mon Apr 28, 2:44 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 5:43 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 11:49 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 12:58 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz..., (Tue Apr 29, 5:37 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Wed Apr 30, 7:16 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Andrew Morton, (Mon Apr 28, 12:59 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: Failing to probe IDE interface, Mel Gorman, (Tue Apr 29, 5:39 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:50 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:53 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pavel Machek, (Fri Apr 18, 7:07 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pavel Machek, (Fri Apr 18, 5:42 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Alan Stern, (Fri Apr 18, 11:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:57 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 5:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 8:18 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:09 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Apr 18, 2:40 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:24 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, James Morris, (Fri Apr 18, 6:32 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Pekka Enberg, (Fri Apr 18, 3:25 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 2:56 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Apr 18, 1:49 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 2:10 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:19 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 3:28 am)
Re: Stack protector build failure (was Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not l..., Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Apr 18, 12:57 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 5:28 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Thu Apr 17, 7:55 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 9:35 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Fri Apr 18, 10:57 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 8:04 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Paul Moore, (Fri Apr 18, 10:55 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 7:40 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 8:14 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Thu Apr 17, 11:05 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 3:37 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 5:54 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 7:46 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 18, 8:34 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 8:41 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 9:02 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 9:22 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Jason Wessel, (Fri Apr 18, 9:27 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 10:47 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Vegard Nossum, (Fri Apr 18, 12:02 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Greg KH, (Thu Apr 17, 7:24 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Kay Sievers, (Thu Apr 17, 8:48 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Fri Apr 18, 12:07 am)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Andrew Morton, (Thu Apr 17, 9:12 pm)
Re: 2.6.25-mm1: not looking good, Dan Williams, (Thu Apr 17, 7:24 pm)