On 07/27/2011 02:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Dear RT Folks, I'm pleased to announce the 3.0-rt4 release.
Testing rt5 (lenovo dual core laptop running fc15, kernel based on koji's 3.0.0 build plus rt5)...
---- [ 0.000000] ============================================= [ 0.000000] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] [ 0.000000] 3.0.0-1.rt5.1.fc15.ccrma.i686.rtPAE #1 [ 0.000000] --------------------------------------------- [ 0.000000] swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock:[ 0.000000] (&parent->list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04fb406>] __cache_free+0x43/0xc3
[ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] but task is already holding lock:[ 0.000000] (&parent->list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04fc538>] do_tune_cpucache+0xf2/0x2bb
[ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] other info that might help us debug this: [ 0.000000] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] CPU0 [ 0.000000] ---- [ 0.000000] lock(&parent->list_lock); [ 0.000000] lock(&parent->list_lock); [ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] 3 locks held by swapper/0:[ 0.000000] #0: (cache_chain_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0bd9d2b>] kmem_cache_init_late+0xe/0x61 [ 0.000000] #1: (&per_cpu(slab_lock, __cpu).lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04faa65>] __local_lock_irq+0x1e/0x5b [ 0.000000] #2: (&parent->list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c04fc538>] do_tune_cpucache+0xf2/0x2bb
[ 0.000000] [ 0.000000] stack backtrace:[ 0.000000] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.0.0-1.rt5.1.fc15.ccrma.i686.rtPAE #1
[ 0.000000] Call Trace: [ 0.000000] [<c0856355>] ? printk+0x2d/0x2f [ 0.000000] [<c0474a4b>] __lock_acquire+0x805/0xb57 [ 0.000000] [<c0472604>] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.10+0x4b/0x51 [ 0.000000] [<c085ecb4>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x31/0x3d [ 0.000000] [<c085dbc5>] ? rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x75/0x190 [ 0.000000] [<c04720c3>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd [ 0.000000] [<c04fb406>] ? __cache_free+0x43/0xc3 [ 0.000000] [<c0475215>] lock_acquire+0xde/0x11d [ 0.000000] [<c04fb406>] ? __cache_free+0x43/0xc3 [ 0.000000] [<c085e24f>] rt_spin_lock+0x50/0x56 [ 0.000000] [<c04fb406>] ? __cache_free+0x43/0xc3 [ 0.000000] [<c04fb406>] __cache_free+0x43/0xc3 [ 0.000000] [<c043646d>] ? test_ti_thread_flag+0x8/0x10 [ 0.000000] [<c04fb23f>] kmem_cache_free+0x6c/0xdc [ 0.000000] [<c04fb2fe>] slab_destroy+0x4f/0x53 [ 0.000000] [<c04fb396>] free_block+0x94/0xc1 [ 0.000000] [<c04fc551>] do_tune_cpucache+0x10b/0x2bb [ 0.000000] [<c04fc8dc>] enable_cpucache+0x7b/0xa7 [ 0.000000] [<c0bd9d3c>] kmem_cache_init_late+0x1f/0x61 [ 0.000000] [<c0bba687>] start_kernel+0x24c/0x363 [ 0.000000] [<c0bba1c4>] ? loglevel+0x18/0x18 [ 0.000000] [<c0bba0ba>] i386_start_kernel+0xa9/0xaf ---- Full dmesg and config attached.(I guess because HIGHMEM is disabled the computer only finds 800M+ of LOWMEM and that is all top reports - total installed is 4G)
-- Fernando
Attachment:
dmesg.rt5.bz2
Description: application/bzip
Attachment:
config.rt5.bz2
Description: application/bzip
