Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 03:09:05PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 02:43:22PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> > >> This doesn't look like the same problem. Here we've got BUG: scheduling
>> > >> while atomic. If it was the bug fixed by the above commits, then you
>> > >> would hit a BUG_ON. I would start looking at the btrfs bits to see if
>> > >> they're holding any locks in this code path.
>> > >
>> > > Ignore that one and move to IMG_0350.IMG. 'scheduling while atomic' is
>> > > just noise. Besides Mike and Vivek told me to blame you for not pushing
>> > > Jens harder on these fixes. :-)))))
>> >
>> > I'm looking at 0355, which shows the very top of the trace, and that
>> > says BUG: scheduling while atomic. So the problem reported here *is*
>> > different from the one fixed by the above two commits. In fact, I don't
>> > see evidence of the multipath + flush issue in any of these pictures.
>>
>> You have to ignore the 'schedule while atomic' thing it is just a
>>
>> printk("BUG: scheduling while atomic"), it is _not_ a BUG(). :-)
>> (hint read kernel/sched.c::__schedule_bug)
>
> May be thread holding the queue lock got scheduled out hence leading to
> deadlock. ?
Assuming all of these messages were from the same boot, the scheduling
while atomic message actually came *after* the nmi lockup detection
logic fired.
Is there any more information available on this bug? Is it
reproducible? What is the storage configuration?
-Jeff
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
