Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Feng Tang
Hi Bjorn, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:02:52 -0700 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Feng Tang wrote: > > Hi Fengguang, > > > > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 > > Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > >> Feng, > >> > >> > I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: > >>

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Bjorn Helgaas
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Feng Tang wrote: > Hi Fengguang, > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 > Fengguang Wu wrote: > >> Feng, >> >> > I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: >> > >> > /* >> > * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS allocations with IRQs

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:49:08PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote: > Hi Fengguang, > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 > Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > Feng, > > > > > I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: > > > > > > /* > > > * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Feng Tang
Hi Fengguang, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 Fengguang Wu wrote: > Feng, > > > I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: > > > > /* > > * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS allocations with IRQs disabled. > > */ > > if

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Feng Tang
Hi Fengguang, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote: Feng, I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: /* * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS allocations with IRQs disabled. */ if

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 03:49:08PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote: Hi Fengguang, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote: Feng, I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: /* * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Bjorn Helgaas
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote: Hi Fengguang, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote: Feng, I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: /* * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-22 Thread Feng Tang
Hi Bjorn, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:02:52 -0700 Bjorn Helgaas bhelg...@google.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote: Hi Fengguang, On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:50:08 +0800 Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com wrote: Feng, I think it's

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-21 Thread Fengguang Wu
Feng, > I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: > > /* > * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS allocations with IRQs disabled. > */ > if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(irqs_disabled_flags(flags))) > return; It's bisected down to this commit: commit

Re: pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-08-21 Thread Fengguang Wu
Feng, I think it's pci_get_subsys() triggered this assert: /* * Oi! Can't be having __GFP_FS allocations with IRQs disabled. */ if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(irqs_disabled_flags(flags))) return; It's bisected down to this commit: commit

pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-07-31 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 05:18:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:09:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 16:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > What was the next lines? I bet you it was "PASSED". Which means it did > > > > not fail.

pci_get_subsys: GFP_KERNEL allocations with IRQs disabled

2012-07-31 Thread Fengguang Wu
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 05:18:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:09:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 16:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: What was the next lines? I bet you it was PASSED. Which means it did not fail. This is the