[PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: John Kacur
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008 - 1:52 pm

Even after applying some fixes posted by Chirag and Peter Z, I'm still
getting some messages in my log like this
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context swapper(0) at
kernel/rtmutex.c:743
in_atomic():1 [00000001], irqs_disabled():1
Pid: 0, comm: swapper Tainted: G        W 2.6.26.1-rt1.jk #2

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff802305d3>] __might_sleep+0x12d/0x132
 [<ffffffff8046cdbe>] __rt_spin_lock+0x34/0x7d
 [<ffffffff8046ce15>] rt_spin_lock+0xe/0x10
 [<ffffffff802532e5>] pm_qos_requirement+0x1f/0x3c
 [<ffffffff803e1b7f>] menu_select+0x7b/0x9c
 [<ffffffff8020b1be>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x5a
 [<ffffffff8020b1be>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x5a
 [<ffffffff803e0b4b>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x68/0xd8
 [<ffffffff803e0ae3>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x0/0xd8
 [<ffffffff8020b1be>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x5a
 [<ffffffff8020b333>] cpu_idle+0xb2/0x12d
 [<ffffffff80466af0>] start_secondary+0x186/0x18b

---------------------------
| preempt count: 00000001 ]
| 1-level deep critical section nesting:
----------------------------------------
.. [<ffffffff8020b39c>] .... cpu_idle+0x11b/0x12d
.....[<ffffffff80466af0>] ..   ( <= start_secondary+0x186/0x18b)

The following simple patch makes the messages disappear - however,
there may be a better more fine grained solution, but the problem is
also that all the functions are designed to use the same lock.
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Mon Aug 4, 1:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Aug 5, 12:25 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Tue Aug 5, 1:49 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, Peter Zijlstra, (Tue Aug 5, 2:09 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Tue Aug 5, 3:18 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Mon Aug 11, 6:25 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Tue Aug 12, 3:49 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Wed Aug 13, 1:24 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Thu Aug 14, 8:52 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu Aug 14, 10:48 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Thu Aug 14, 3:51 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Wed Aug 20, 12:14 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Mon Aug 25, 9:34 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Aug 25, 9:35 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Tue Aug 26, 1:48 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Tue Aug 26, 9:18 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Tue Aug 26, 10:45 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Thu Aug 28, 12:38 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, mark gross, (Thu Aug 28, 12:44 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, Andrew Morton, (Thu Aug 28, 5:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, John Kacur, (Thu Aug 28, 11:31 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep, Steven Rostedt, (Fri Aug 29, 7:29 am)