Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008 - Kernel

This is a discussion on Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008 - Kernel ; This is the first report where I've dropped oopses that happened to 2.6.25 or earlier kernels. I've also changed the format of the report to split it in "fixed" and "not yet fixed" sections; I hope that makes the report ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

  1. Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    This is the first report where I've dropped oopses that happened to 2.6.25 or earlier kernels.
    I've also changed the format of the report to split it in "fixed" and "not yet fixed" sections;
    I hope that makes the report more useful for developers.



    This week, a total of 1730 oopses and warnings have been reported,
    compared to 626 reports in the previous week.


    Per file statistics
    266 net/sched/sch_generic.c
    260 kernel/timer/tglx.c
    167 drivers/ata/libata-sff.c
    154 external/utrace
    80 net/core/dev.c
    62 drivers/parport/procfs.c
    54 external/fireglx/binary (P)
    45 fs/jbd/journal.c
    38 kernel/timer.c
    34 drivers/base/power/main.c
    27 lib/scatterlist.c
    25 kernel/sched.c
    23 include/asm-x86/irqflags.h


    Not yet fixed issues
    ====================

    Rank 1: dev_watchdog (warning)
    Reported 263 times (495 total reports)
    Network card timeout; this error is currently not specific enough, a patch
    is pending to get this reported per driver, with some luck this gets merged soon.
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc6, and first seen in 2.6.26-rc3.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...h=dev_watchdog

    Rank 4: utrace_control (oops)
    Reported 149 times (152 total reports)
    [fedora] Fedora merged a broken utrace patch
    This oops was last seen in version 2.6.26.3, and first seen in 2.6.26.1.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...utrace_control

    Rank 6: parport_device_proc_register (warning)
    Reported 62 times (3942 total reports)
    Duplicate /proc registration in the parport driver
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.26.3, and first seen in 2.6.24-rc5.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek..._proc_register

    Rank 7: firegl_ioctl (warning)
    Reported 50 times (2479 total reports)
    [external] Bug in the proprietary fireglx driver
    warning only shows up in tainted kernels
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.26.5, and first seen in 2.6.25.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...h=firegl_ioctl

    Rank 8: journal_update_superblock (warning)
    Reported 44 times (3767 total reports)
    Likely caused by the user removing a USB stick while mounted
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc6, and first seen in 2.6.24-rc6-git1.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...ate_superblock

    Rank 9: run_timer_softirq (oops)
    Reported 36 times (76 total reports)
    softlockup; might be fixed by Thomas' HPET fixes
    This oops was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc1-git4, and first seen in 2.6.25.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek..._timer_softirq

    Rank 10: device_pm_add (warning)
    Reported 29 times (122 total reports)
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc4, and first seen in 2.6.26-rc5.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...=device_pm_add

    Rank 12: native_safe_halt (oops)
    Reported 23 times (122 total reports)
    This oops was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc5, and first seen in 2.6.24.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...tive_safe_halt

    Rank 13: account (warning)
    Reported 13 times (16 total reports)
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.26.3, and first seen in 2.6.26.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek.php?search=account

    Rank 14: lock_page (warning)
    Reported 12 times (31 total reports)
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc6, and first seen in 2.6.27-rc1-git2.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...arch=lock_page

    Fixed issues
    ============


    Rank 2: tick_dev_program_event (warning)
    Reported 260 times (282 total reports)
    [debug] temporary WARN_ON() inserted in -rc5 for diagnostics purposes, removed for -rc6
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc5-git10, and first seen in 2.6.27-rc5.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek..._program_event

    Rank 3: ata_sff_hsm_move (warning)
    Reported 167 times (300 total reports)
    [fixed] redundant WARN_ON; fixed in 9c2676b61a5a4b6d99e65fb2f438fb3914302eda
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc2-git1, and first seen in 2.6.25.4.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...a_sff_hsm_move

    Rank 5: __netif_schedule (warning)
    Reported 74 times (559 total reports)
    [fixed] issue as a result of the multiqueue feature, fixed for 2.6.27-rc1
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.27-rc0-git11, and first seen in 2.6.26-rc8-git.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...netif_schedule

    Rank 11: sg_copy_buffer (warning)
    Reported 27 times (29 total reports)
    [fixed] by making the locks _irqsave (and backported to -stable)
    This warning was last seen in version 2.6.26.5, and first seen in 2.6.26-rc6.
    More info: http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...sg_copy_buffer



    --
    Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
    For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
    visit http://www.lesswatts.org
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  2. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:22:06 -0700
    Arjan van de Ven wrote:


    > Not yet fixed issues
    > ====================
    >
    > Rank 1: dev_watchdog (warning)
    > Reported 263 times (495 total reports)
    > Network card timeout; this error is currently not specific
    > enough, a patch is pending to get this reported per driver, with some
    > luck this gets merged soon. This warning was last seen in version
    > 2.6.27-rc6, and first seen in 2.6.26-rc3. More info:
    > http://www.kerneloops.org/searchweek...h=dev_watchdog


    Some of these are undoubtedly from the atl1 driver, and many of those
    from that driver are probably from me personally as I've poked around
    trying to isolate the cause. I sent a patch yesterday to Alexey
    Dobriyan (who's also been experiencing it) that seems to quash the
    warnings, so hopefully we're near resolution. On my own development
    system I recently turned off kerneloops, so at least *my* contribution
    to the list will diminish.

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

  3. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    (Dropped a few irrelevant lists.)

    > Rank 6: parport_device_proc_register (warning)
    > ********Reported 62 times (3942 total reports)
    > ********Duplicate /proc registration in the parport driver
    > ********This warning was last seen in version 2.6.26.3, and first seen
    > in 2.6.24-rc5.


    Note that I'm still seeing this in 2.6.27-rc7. This is now one of the
    oldest entries in the list and as it happens for *every* print job, it's
    quite an annoying one.

    Unfortunately I still cannot get kerneloops to work for me.
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  4. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008



    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
    >
    > > Rank 6: parport_device_proc_register (warning)
    > > ********Reported 62 times (3942 total reports)
    > > ********Duplicate /proc registration in the parport driver
    > > ********This warning was last seen in version 2.6.26.3, and first seen
    > > in 2.6.24-rc5.

    >
    > Note that I'm still seeing this in 2.6.27-rc7. This is now one of the
    > oldest entries in the list and as it happens for *every* print job, it's
    > quite an annoying one.
    >
    > Unfortunately I still cannot get kerneloops to work for me.


    Al and Arjan looked at this one at the KS, and quite frankly, the warning
    is just bogus.

    Or rather, it's a warnign about the parport /proc interface. The fact is,
    the parport code can generate multiple "instances" of things that
    time-slice on the port, but they have all ended up always just registering
    under the same name. IOW, it's a bug in the _user_ interface, not the
    kernel.

    I'd like to remove the file entirely (probably nobody uses it), but Al
    said he could perhaps send patches to extend it (yet leave the old name to
    point to the first instance, the way it always has).

    In the meantime, that warning is just best ignored entirely. It's not a
    kernel bug per se, or even anything that is fixable without changing
    exported user interfaces that in my opinion aren't necessarily even
    _worth_ changing (the only reasonable change is extending on the insane
    interface that nobody cares about).

    I think Arjan agreed to just remove it from his statistics, but maybe he's
    just ignoring _new_ entries

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

  5. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
    Linus Torvalds wrote:

    >
    > I think Arjan agreed to just remove it from his statistics, but maybe
    > he's just ignoring _new_ entries


    yeah I blacklisted it on submission; I haven't removed it from the
    database


    --
    Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
    For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
    visit http://www.lesswatts.org
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  6. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008



    On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > Or rather, it's a warnign about the parport /proc interface. The fact is,
    > the parport code can generate multiple "instances" of things that
    > time-slice on the port, but they have all ended up always just registering
    > under the same name. IOW, it's a bug in the _user_ interface, not the
    > kernel.


    Side note: the reason nobody cares is that the files exported there are
    likely never used anyway. But we don't _know_ that. Maybe somebody depends
    on the totally broken things that get registered in /proc. I doubt it,
    but..

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

  7. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    On Thursday 25 September 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > In the meantime, that warning is just best ignored entirely. It's not a
    > kernel bug per se, or even anything that is fixable without changing
    > exported user interfaces that in my opinion aren't necessarily even
    > _worth_ changing (the only reasonable change is extending on the insane
    > interface that nobody cares about).


    Yep, I agree it's basically harmless and I have been ignoring it. But that
    does not make it less annoying as, because of the call trace, it will
    continue to show up in logcheck mails every time.

    If no other solution is found soon, would a patch to just skip the sysctl
    table check for this particular case be acceptable?
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  8. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008



    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
    >
    > If no other solution is found soon, would a patch to just skip the sysctl
    > table check for this particular case be acceptable?


    Well, it would be even _more_ acceptable to have a new Kconfig option that
    just disables the insane parport registrations.

    Them you could turn off the /proc files, and if it turns out you don't
    have anything that uses it, you can avoid the warning by actually having a
    smaller kernel with less crap, rather than adding more crap to hide the
    crap. Wouldn't that be nicer?

    It would have to be a Kconfig option since we don't _know_ that it's not
    used by anything..

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

  9. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    > In the meantime, that warning is just best ignored entirely. It's not a
    > kernel bug per se, or even anything that is fixable without changing
    > exported user interfaces that in my opinion aren't necessarily even
    > _worth_ changing (the only reasonable change is extending on the insane
    > interface that nobody cares about).


    How about a quickfix for the moment. This ought to do the job. BTW I
    disagree that the link should be to first, it would be best a link to the
    active driver IMHO.

    Has been Torvalds-tested only (ie it compiled)

    --

    parport: quickfix the proc registration bug

    From: Alan Cox

    Ideally we should have a directory of drivers and a link to the 'active'
    driver. For now just show the first device which is effectively the existing
    semantics without a warning.

    Signed-off-by: Alan Cox
    ---

    drivers/parport/share.c | 13 ++++++++++---
    drivers/serial/8250_pci.c | 4 ++--
    include/linux/parport.h | 4 ++++
    3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


    diff --git a/drivers/parport/share.c b/drivers/parport/share.c
    index a8a62bb..0750dcb 100644
    --- a/drivers/parport/share.c
    +++ b/drivers/parport/share.c
    @@ -614,7 +614,10 @@ parport_register_device(struct parport *port, const char *name,
    * pardevice fields. -arca
    */
    port->ops->init_state(tmp, tmp->state);
    - parport_device_proc_register(tmp);
    + if (test_and_set_bit(PARPORT_DEVPROC_REGISTERED, &port->devflags)) {
    + port->proc_device = tmp;
    + parport_device_proc_register(tmp);
    + }
    return tmp;

    out_free_all:
    @@ -646,10 +649,14 @@ void parport_unregister_device(struct pardevice *dev)
    }
    #endif

    - parport_device_proc_unregister(dev);
    -
    port = dev->port->physport;

    + if (port->proc_device == dev) {
    + port->proc_device = NULL;
    + clear_bit(PARPORT_DEVPROC_REGISTERED, &port->devflags);
    + parport_device_proc_unregister(dev);
    + }
    +
    if (port->cad == dev) {
    printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: %s forgot to release port\n",
    port->name, dev->name);
    diff --git a/include/linux/parport.h b/include/linux/parport.h
    index 6a0d7cd..986252e 100644
    --- a/include/linux/parport.h
    +++ b/include/linux/parport.h
    @@ -326,6 +326,10 @@ struct parport {
    int spintime;
    atomic_t ref_count;

    + unsigned long devflags;
    +#define PARPORT_DEVPROC_REGISTERED 0
    + struct pardevice *proc_device; /* Currently register proc device */
    +
    struct list_head full_list;
    struct parport *slaves[3];
    };
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  10. Re: Warning/Oops report of the week of September 16th, 2008

    On Friday 26 September 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
    > parport: quickfix the proc registration bug
    >
    > From: Alan Cox
    >
    > Ideally we should have a directory of drivers and a link to the
    > 'active' driver. For now just show the first device which is
    > effectively the existing semantics without a warning.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox


    Thanks Greg, but I'm afraid that still gives me the error:

    ppdev0: registered pardevice
    sysctl table check failed: /dev/parport/parport0/devices/ppdev0/timeslice
    Sysctl already exists
    Pid: 7104, comm: hpijs Not tainted 2.6.27-rc7 #21

    Call Trace:
    [] set_fail+0x48/0x53
    [] sysctl_check_table+0x4ea/0x531
    [] sysctl_check_table+0x503/0x531
    [] sysctl_check_table+0x503/0x531
    [] sysctl_check_table+0x503/0x531
    [] sysctl_check_table+0x503/0x531
    [] sysctl_check_table+0x503/0x531
    [] ? sysctl_set_parent+0x24/0x39
    [] __register_sysctl_paths+0xee/0x29e
    [] ? sprintf+0x68/0x6a
    [] register_sysctl_paths+0x29/0x2b
    [] register_sysctl_table+0x13/0x15
    [] parport_device_proc_register+0xcc/0xf0 [parport]
    [] parport_register_device+0x25c/0x296 [parport]
    [] ? pp_irq+0x0/0x4b [ppdev]
    [] pp_ioctl+0x16f/0x7c8 [ppdev]
    [] ? free_pages_and_swap_cache+0x57/0x72
    [] vfs_ioctl+0x2a/0x78
    [] do_vfs_ioctl+0x257/0x274
    [] sys_ioctl+0x55/0x78
    [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

    ppdev0: registered pardevice
    ppdev0: unregistered pardevice
    ppdev0: unregistered pardevice

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

+ Reply to Thread