On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 05:14:14PM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> Maybe PREEMPT_NONE is not really what we want to check against, maybe it is
> RT_MUTEXES... anyway, this patch works fine as is in kernels with
> PREEMPT_NONE, PREEMPT_DESKTOP, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and PREEMPT_RT set.
>
> ---
>
> net: iptables: rework the fix of xt_info locking
>
> Commit 5bbbedc from tip/rt/2.6.33 fixed an annoying locking issue on
> PREEMPT_RT enabled kernels. I have observed a similar issue when testing a
> kernel with PREEMPT_DESKTOP enabled. My test kernels would boot fine and as
> soon as I tried to ssh into the test box I would see messages like this one:
>
> BUG: %Ps exited with wrong preemption count!
> => enter: 00000101, exit: 00000100.
> BUG: %Ps exited with wrong preemption count!
> => enter: 00000101, exit: 00000100.
> BUG: %Ps exited with wrong preemption count!
> => enter: 00000102, exit: 00000101.
This error message would be a bit more usful after this patch:
diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
index c35f72b..b3b20b0 100644
--- a/kernel/softirq.c
+++ b/kernel/softirq.c
@@ -335,8 +335,8 @@ debug_check_preempt_count_stop(__u32 *preempt_count, struct softirq_action *h)
if (*preempt_count == preempt_count())
return;
- print_symbol("BUG: %Ps exited with wrong preemption count!\n",
- (unsigned long)h->action);
+ printk("BUG: %ps exited with wrong preemption count!\n",
+ h->action);
printk("=> enter: %08x, exit: %08x.\n", *preempt_count, preempt_count());
preempt_count() = *preempt_count;
#endif
Note this is completely untested and applies on top of v2.6.33.7.2-rt30.
Thomas: should I send a proper patch or isn't it worth the effort?
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
