Expand might_sleep's printk to indicate the oopsing process.
Signed-off-by: Joe Korty <[email protected]>
Index: 2.6.27-rc4-git4/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- 2.6.27-rc4-git4.orig/kernel/sched.c 2008-08-26 17:44:34.000000000 -0400
+++ 2.6.27-rc4-git4/kernel/sched.c 2008-08-26 18:24:08.000000000 -0400
@@ -8183,8 +8183,8 @@
prev_jiffy = jiffies;
printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid"
" context at %s:%d\n", file, line);
- printk("in_atomic():%d, irqs_disabled():%d\n",
- in_atomic(), irqs_disabled());
+ printk("in_atomic():%d, irqs_disabled():%d, pid: %d, name: %s\n",
+ in_atomic(), irqs_disabled(), current->pid, current->comm);
debug_show_held_locks(current);
if (irqs_disabled())
print_irqtrace_events(current);
* Joe Korty <[email protected]> wrote:
> Expand might_sleep's printk to indicate the oopsing process.
good idea - applied to tip/sched/devel - thanks Joe.
Ingo
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:36:28 +0200
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Expand might_sleep's printk to indicate the oopsing process.
>
> good idea
Why? I don't recall ever having been interested in this information.
(I shouldn't have to ask questions like this. Please spend a little
more time in preparing the patch descriptions).
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:20:03PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:36:28 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Expand might_sleep's printk to indicate the oopsing process.
> >
> > good idea
>
> Why? I don't recall ever having been interested in this information.
>
> (I shouldn't have to ask questions like this. Please spend a little
> more time in preparing the patch descriptions).
I wrote and used the patch once, as I wanted to know
which program in a lengthy multiple-program test suite
was triggering the problem. That made it easier coming
up with a shortened test that would replicate the problem.
However I only needed it that one time so this patch can
be considered to be exceptionally optional :)
Joe
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:45:20 -0400
Joe Korty <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 07:20:03PM -0400, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:36:28 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Expand might_sleep's printk to indicate the oopsing process.
> > >
> > > good idea
> >
> > Why? I don't recall ever having been interested in this
> > information.
> >
> > (I shouldn't have to ask questions like this. Please spend a little
> > more time in preparing the patch descriptions).
>
> I wrote and used the patch once, as I wanted to know
> which program in a lengthy multiple-program test suite
> was triggering the problem. That made it easier coming
> up with a shortened test that would replicate the problem.
>
> However I only needed it that one time so this patch can
> be considered to be exceptionally optional :)
WARN() and WARN_ON() already print the oopsing process.
so if might_sleep() just calls one of those it already prints it.
If it doesn't call one of these.. maybe it should?
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [email protected]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org