On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 23:13 +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> while testing 2.6.20 with RTnet, I got this kernel BUG during the slave
> startup procedure:
> 
> <4>[  137.799234] TDMA: calibrated master-to-slave packet delay: 34 us 
> (min/max: 33/38 us)
> <4>[  142.291455] BUG: at kernel/fork.c:993 copy_process()
> <4>[  142.291585]  [<c0103a8f>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
> <4>[  142.291767]  [<c0104237>] show_trace+0x17/0x20
> <4>[  142.291896]  [<c010432b>] dump_stack+0x1b/0x20
> <4>[  142.292026]  [<c0111e94>] copy_process+0x914/0x13d0
> <4>[  142.292190]  [<c0112b80>] do_fork+0x70/0x1b0
> <4>[  142.292323]  [<c0101078>] sys_clone+0x38/0x40
> <4>[  142.292620]  [<c010320f>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> <4>[  142.292747]  =======================
> <3>[  142.292860] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
> mm/slab.c:3034
> <4>[  142.293052] in_atomic():0, irqs_disabled():1
                                                 ^^^^

Typical of something going wrong in entry.S.

> <4>[  142.293152] no locks held by init/1.
> <4>[  142.293244] irq event stamp: 500992
> <4>[  142.293335] hardirqs last  enabled at (500991): [<c010b77c>] 
> __ipipe_handle_exception+0xdc/0x188
> <4>[  142.293737] hardirqs last disabled at (500992): [<c010306e>] 
> ret_from_exception+0xe/0x20
> <4>[  142.293967] softirqs last  enabled at (500868): [<c01189ab>] 
> __do_softirq+0xab/0xc0
> <4>[  142.294189] softirqs last disabled at (500861): [<c0118a55>] 
> do_softirq+0x95/0xa0
> <4>[  142.294562]  [<c0103a8f>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
> <4>[  142.294743]  [<c0104237>] show_trace+0x17/0x20
> <4>[  142.294897]  [<c010432b>] dump_stack+0x1b/0x20
> <4>[  142.295050]  [<c010f35d>] __might_sleep+0xcd/0x100
> <4>[  142.295220]  [<c017d771>] kmem_cache_alloc+0xa1/0xc0
> <4>[  142.295527]  [<c0110f89>] dup_fd+0x29/0x2d0
> <4>[  142.295689]  [<c0111279>] copy_files+0x49/0x70
> <4>[  142.295851]  [<c0111c2f>] copy_process+0x6af/0x13d0
> <4>[  142.296019]  [<c0112b80>] do_fork+0x70/0x1b0
> <4>[  142.296178]  [<c0101078>] sys_clone+0x38/0x40
> <4>[  142.296326]  [<c010320f>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> <4>[  142.296641]  =======================
> 
> I'm seeing this with Xenomai trunk + the xnpod_suspend_thread patch. I
> attached my .config. The interesting thing is that this doesn't show up
> with v2.3.x head (kernel & config identical). Switching back to 2.6.19
> doesn't change the picture.
> 

Could you disable the tracer and remove the xnpod_suspend_thread()
patch, then downgrade to 1.6-04 to remove the COW support? TIA,

> Anyone any idea? No-COW is now both in trunk and 2.3.x, right?
> 

Only with the I-pipe patches from the 1.7 series on x86.

> Jan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xenomai-core mailing list
> Xenomai-core@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
-- 
Philippe.



_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to