I get this when modprobing some module I am working on. I figured it
was the module's fault but the EIP points to something else so I am
not sure. I get the following repeating about 4 times on 2.6.32-rc5:
[ 4806.829545] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10010000
[ 4806.829551] Modules linked in: ath9k_htc ath9k_hw ath_hif_usb
ath_htc binfmt_misc i915 drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit bri
dge stp bnep lp snd_hda_codec_analog snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec
snd_pcm_oss snd_mixer_oss snd_pcm arc4 snd_seq_dummy snd_seq
_oss snd_seq_midi snd_rawmidi ath5k snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq
snd_timer snd_seq_device mac80211 ath joydev pcmcia ppdev thin
kpad_acpi snd hid_microsoft video parport_pc psmouse soundcore
cfg80211 usbhid output yenta_socket rsrc_nonstatic pcmcia_core
parport btusb serio_raw pcspkr nvram snd_page_alloc led_class
intel_agp agpgart iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support ohci1394 ieee13
94 e1000e
[ 4806.829683]
[ 4806.829690] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted (2.6.32-rc5-wl #27) 7660A14
[ 4806.829700] EIP: 0060:[<c03a1a7b>] EFLAGS: 00000292 CPU: 0
[ 4806.829714] EIP is at acpi_idle_enter_bm+0x251/0x282
[ 4806.829720] EAX: c0884bec EBX: 000002ba ECX: 00000000 EDX: 0137f000
[ 4806.829727] ESI: 00000000 EDI: f70bacc0 EBP: c0773f9c ESP: c0773f70
[ 4806.829733] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
[ 4806.829740] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 0804c000 CR3: 00892000 CR4: 00000690
[ 4806.829748] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
[ 4806.829753] DR6: ffff0ff0 DR7: 00000400
[ 4806.829758] Call Trace:
[ 4806.829773] [<c04a9537>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x77/0xf0
[ 4806.829784] [<c01020da>] cpu_idle+0x5a/0x90
[ 4806.829795] [<c05913c8>] rest_init+0x58/0x70
[ 4806.829808] [<c07e8945>] start_kernel+0x330/0x398
[ 4806.829818] [<c07e83ce>] ? unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x1f6
[ 4806.829828] [<c07e807e>] i386_start_kernel+0x7e/0xa8
Then I get some 3 of these:
[ 4808.518136] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/0x10010000
[ 4808.518143] Modules linked in: ath9k_htc ath9k_hw ath_hif_usb
ath_htc binfmt_misc i915 drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit bridge stp
bnep lp snd_hda_codec_analog snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_pcm_oss
snd_mixer_oss snd_pcm arc4 snd_seq_dummy snd_seq_oss snd_seq_midi
snd_rawmidi ath5k snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq snd_timer snd_seq_device
mac80211 ath joydev pcmcia ppdev thinkpad_acpi snd hid_microsoft video
parport_pc psmouse soundcore cfg80211 usbhid output yenta_socket
rsrc_nonstatic pcmcia_core parport btusb serio_raw pcspkr nvram
snd_page_alloc led_class intel_agp agpgart iTCO_wdt
iTCO_vendor_support ohci1394 ieee1394 e1000e
[ 4808.518258]
[ 4808.518264] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted (2.6.32-rc5-wl #27) 7660A14
[ 4808.518271] EIP: 0060:[<c05a65cf>] EFLAGS: 00000296 CPU: 1
[ 4808.518280] EIP is at _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xf/0x20
[ 4808.518286] EAX: 00000296 EBX: f70bb008 ECX: 0000195e EDX: 00000296
[ 4808.518292] ESI: 00000005 EDI: 00000296 EBP: f70b3f20 ESP: f70b3f20
[ 4808.518299] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
[ 4808.518304] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 08204008 CR3: 36b26000 CR4: 00000690
[ 4808.518310] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
[ 4808.518315] DR6: ffff0ff0 DR7: 00000400
[ 4808.518319] Call Trace:
[ 4808.518328] [<c017615a>] clockevents_notify+0x3a/0x80
[ 4808.518338] [<c03a14d4>] lapic_timer_state_broadcast+0x36/0x39
[ 4808.518347] [<c03a1a99>] acpi_idle_enter_bm+0x26f/0x282
[ 4808.518356] [<c04a9537>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x77/0xf0
[ 4808.518364] [<c01020da>] cpu_idle+0x5a/0x90
[ 4808.518373] [<c05a1204>] start_secondary+0x170/0x1dc
[ 4808.518382] [<c05a1204>] ? start_secondary+0x170/0x1dc
Luis
Luis
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:40:03 -0700
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I get this when modprobing some module I am working on. I figured it
> was the module's fault but the EIP points to something else so I am
> not sure. I get the following repeating about 4 times on 2.6.32-rc5:
you can get this if your own code leaves interrupts disabled in a
kernel thread and then lets the cpu go idle...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
> > I get this when modprobing some module I am working on. I figured it
> > was the module's fault but the EIP points to something else so I am
> > not sure. I get the following repeating about 4 times on 2.6.32-rc5:
>
>
> you can get this if your own code leaves interrupts disabled in a
> kernel thread and then lets the cpu go idle...
Unclear.
acpi_enter_idle_bm() assumes that it is entered with irqs enabled,
and so it we unconditionally disables IRQs.
Then we unconditionally re-enable them.
The problem seems to be that right after we enable them,
we find that they are actually disabled, perhaps as
a side-effect of SMM.
Is your machine a Dell, per chance?
Please test the patches in this bug report:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14101
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Len Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I get this when modprobing some module I am working on. I figured it
>> > was the module's fault but the EIP points to something else so I am
>> > not sure. I get the following repeating about 4 times on 2.6.32-rc5:
>>
>>
>> you can get this if your own code leaves interrupts disabled in a
>> kernel thread and then lets the cpu go idle...
>
> Unclear.
>
> acpi_enter_idle_bm() assumes that it is entered with irqs enabled,
> and so it we unconditionally disables IRQs.
>
> Then we unconditionally re-enable them.
>
> The problem seems to be that right after we enable them,
> we find that they are actually disabled, perhaps as
> a side-effect of SMM.
>
> Is your machine a Dell, per chance?
Nope.
> Please test the patches in this bug report:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14101
In my case it was as Arjan pointed out and I've fixed it in my driver.
Sorry for not reporting back and thanks for your review.
Luis