Alessandro Suardi reported:
> Recently upgraded my FC6 desktop to Fedora 9; with the
> latest nautilus RPM updates my VNC session went nuts
> with nautilus pegging the CPU for everything that breathed.
>
> I now reverted to an earlier nautilus package, but during
> the peak CPU period my kernel spat this:
>
> [314185.623294] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [314185.623414] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2658 check_flags+0x4c/0x128()
> [314185.623514] Modules linked in: iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables
> sunrpc ipv6 fuse snd_via82xx snd_ac97_codec ac97_bus snd_mpu401_uart
> snd_rawmidi via686a hwmon parport_pc sg parport uhci_hcd ehci_hcd
> [314185.623924] Pid: 12314, comm: nautilus Not tainted 2.6.26-rc5-git2 #4
> [314185.624021] [<c0115b95>] warn_on_slowpath+0x41/0x7b
> [314185.624021] [<c010de70>] ? do_page_fault+0x2c1/0x5fd
> [314185.624021] [<c0128396>] ? up_read+0x16/0x28
> [314185.624021] [<c010de70>] ? do_page_fault+0x2c1/0x5fd
> [314185.624021] [<c012fa33>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbb4/0xbc3
> [314185.624021] [<c012d0a0>] check_flags+0x4c/0x128
> [314185.624021] [<c012fa73>] lock_acquire+0x31/0x7d
> [314185.624021] [<c0128cf6>] __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x30/0x80
> [314185.624021] [<c0128cc6>] ? __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x0/0x80
> [314185.624021] [<c0128d52>] atomic_notifier_call_chain+0xc/0xe
> [314185.624021] [<c0128d81>] notify_die+0x2d/0x2f
> [314185.624021] [<c01043b0>] do_int3+0x1f/0x4d
> [314185.624021] [<c02f2d3b>] int3+0x27/0x2c
> [314185.624021] =======================
> [314185.624021] ---[ end trace 1923f65a2d7bb246 ]---
> [314185.624021] possible reason: unannotated irqs-off.
> [314185.624021] irq event stamp: 488879
> [314185.624021] hardirqs last enabled at (488879): [<c0102d67>]
> restore_nocheck+0x12/0x15
> [314185.624021] hardirqs last disabled at (488878): [<c0102dca>]
> work_resched+0x19/0x30
> [314185.624021] softirqs last enabled at (488876): [<c011a1ba>]
> __do_softirq+0xa6/0xac
> [314185.624021] softirqs last disabled at (488865): [<c010476e>]
> do_softirq+0x57/0xa6
>
> I didn't seem to find it with some googling, so here it is.
>
> I was incidentally ltracing that process to try and find out
> what was gulping down that much CPU (sorry, no idea
> whether ltrace and the WARNING happened at the same
> time or which came first) and:
Yeah, this is extremely likely to be the source of the warning.
The warning should be harmless, however.
> Box is my trusty noname K7-800, 512MB RAM; if there's
> anything else useful I might be able to provide, just ask.
It would be interesting to see where the int3 comes from. Too bad,
lockdep doesn't provide the register dump. The stacktrace also doesn't
go further than the int3(), I wonder if this int3 came from userspace?
The ltrace readme says "software breakpoints, like gdb", so I guess
this is the case. Yep, seems like it.
This looks relevant:
| commit fb1dac909d
| Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
| Date: Wed Jan 16 09:51:59 2008 +0100
|
| lockdep: more hardirq annotations for notify_die()
I'm attaching a similarly-looking patch for this case (DO_VM86_ERROR),
though I suspect it might be missing for the other cases
(DO_ERROR/DO_ERROR_INFO) as well.
Reported-by: Alessandro Suardi <alessandro.suardi@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
4461145ef1