Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758874Ab0GUWJu (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:09:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:53689 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754907Ab0GUWJr (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:09:47 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=WJcLx7fCtkNeai0qYoQOEIGz9bVnNNj4wBruyYLhU8F7czTuHGWpZsIOkqDpP+jaWY 3+/dZ7l5kdcBrujq4ULjbR3YcaAQFXJqhPkHh/5o8AWq0jBpD3NAve0rZbJjvHoznEJD sew5EGFNicgSnY/So1F8yctJTs2uP1390u3IM= Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:09:26 -0700 From: mark gross To: Andrew Morton Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Thomas Gleixner , "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , mark gross Subject: Re: mmotm 2010-07-19 - e1000e vs. pm_qos_update_request issues Message-ID: <20100721220926.GA2610@gvim.org> Reply-To: markgross@thegnar.org References: <201007200007.o6K07Xbg028863@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <6182.1279658125@localhost> <20100720140751.71ee83a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100720140751.71ee83a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3737 Lines: 80 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 02:07:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:35:25 -0400 > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:38:09 PDT, akpm@linux-foundation.org said: > > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-07-19-16-37 has been uploaded to > > > > > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ > > > > Throws a warning at boot: > > > > [ 1.786060] WARNING: at kernel/pm_qos_params.c:264 pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54() > > [ 1.786088] Hardware name: Latitude E6500 > > [ 1.787045] pm_qos_update_request() called for unknown object > > [ 1.787966] Modules linked in: > > [ 1.788940] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.35-rc5-mmotm0719 #1 > > [ 1.790035] Call Trace: > > [ 1.791121] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98 > > [ 1.792205] [] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x41/0x43 > > [ 1.793279] [] pm_qos_update_request+0x28/0x54 > > [ 1.794347] [] e1000_configure+0x421/0x459 > > [ 1.795393] [] e1000_open+0xbd/0x37c > > [ 1.796436] [] ? raw_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 > > [ 1.797491] [] __dev_open+0xae/0xe2 > > [ 1.798547] [] dev_open+0x1b/0x49 > > [ 1.799612] [] netpoll_setup+0x84/0x259 > > [ 1.800685] [] init_netconsole+0xbc/0x21f > > [ 1.801744] [] ? sir_wq_init+0x0/0x35 > > [ 1.802793] [] ? init_netconsole+0x0/0x21f > > [ 1.803845] [] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x12f > > [ 1.804885] [] kernel_init+0x138/0x1c2 > > [ 1.805915] [] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > > [ 1.806937] [] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 > > [ 1.807955] [] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1c2 > > [ 1.808958] [] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10 > > [ 1.809958] ---[ end trace 84b562a00a60539e ]--- > > > > Looks like a repeat of something I reported against -mmotm 2010-05-11, though a > > WARNING rather than an outright crash - the traceback is pretty much identical. > > I have *no* idea why -rc3-mmotm0701 doesn't whinge similarly. > > > > I don't recall you reporting that, sorry. > > The warning was added by > > : commit 82f682514a5df89ffb3890627eebf0897b7a84ec > : Author: James Bottomley > : AuthorDate: Mon Jul 5 22:53:06 2010 +0200 > : Commit: Rafael J. Wysocki > : CommitDate: Mon Jul 19 02:00:34 2010 +0200 > : > : pm_qos: Get rid of the allocation in pm_qos_add_request() > > > It's a pretty crappy warning too. Neither the warning nor the code > comments provide developers with any hint as to what they have done > wrong, nor what they must do to fix things. And the patch changelog > doesn't mention the new warnings *at all*. Sorry about that. Its my fault, but I thought I had stronger language in the original warning text. The warning is for pm_qos users that are attempting to change a request that isn't even in the list of request. It was a silent failure in the original code. The result of the silent fail is that the request is not changed as assumed by the caller. > So one must assume that the people who stuck this thing in the tree > have volunteered to fix e1000e. Let's cc 'em. I'll put a 1000e patch together at the airport, but I wont be able to test it until tuesday. --mgross -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/