Re: mmotm 2010-05-19 BUG weirdness...

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thursday 20 May 2010 05:55:20 am Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 11:47:50 -0400 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:13:09 PDT, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-05-19-16-12 has been uploaded to
> > > 
> > >    http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
> > 
> > So I'm looking closer at the BUG I just posted
> 
> I can't see that BUG report on lkml or in inbox.
> 
> > - I had deleted two further
> > BUGs because they were obviously follow-ons to the original.  But then...
> > 
> > Note the following 2 lines:
> > 
> > [   35.357018] note: keymap[2481] exited with preempt_count 1
> > [   35.360503] BUG: scheduling while atomic: keymap/2481/0x10000002
> > 
> > The kernel reports the instigating process exited - and then reports it
> > as the offender for a "scheduling while atomic". Insufficient attempted
> > cleanup after the first BUG?  Do we care because this is a sign of a
> > scheduler bug that could trip on a non-BUG as well, or is it "all bets
> > are off" because of the first BUG?
> 
> Yes, the oops code will end up calling do_exit() to get rid of this
> process and to try to keep the machine limping along.  So if you hit an
> oops with (say) a spinlock held, the task will end up calling do_exit()
> with a non-zero preempt_count.
> 
> So the only problem I'm seeing here is .... Dmitry's ;)


Hmm, any chance you could stick a printk in input_set_keycode and print
the id/name of the input device?

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/