Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Find centralized, trusted content and collaborate around the technologies you use most.

Learn more about Collectives

Teams

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Learn more about Teams

0, CPU#0"? in TSC2007 Driver?

Ask Question

I found tsc2007 driver and modified according to our needs. Our firm is producing its own TI DM365 board. In this board we used TSC2007 and connected PENIRQ pin to GPIO0 of DM365. It is being seen OK on driver. when i touch to touchscreen cursor is moving but at the same time i am getting

BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper /0x00000103/0, CPU#0
warning and embedded Linux is being crashed. there are 2 files that i modified and uploaded to http://www.muhendislikhizmeti.com/touchscreen.zip one is with timer the other is not. it is giving this error in any case.
I found a solution on web that i need to use work queue and call with using schedule_work() API. but they are blur for me now. Is anybody have any idea how to solve this problem and can give me some advice where to start to use work queue.
"Scheduling while atomic" indicates that you've tried to sleep somewhere that you shouldn't - like within a spinlock-protected critical section or an interrupt handler.
Common examples of things that can sleep are mutex_lock(), kmalloc(..., GFP_KERNEL), get_user() and put_user().
Exactly as said in 1st answer, scheduling while atomic happens when the scheduler gets confused and therefore unable to work properly and this because the scheduler tried to perform a "schedule()" in a section that contains a schedulable code inside of a non schedulable one.
For example using sleeps inside of a section protected by a spinlock. Trying to use another lock(semaphores,mutexes..) inside of a spinlock-proteced code may also disturb the scheduler. In addition using spinlocks in user space can drive the scheduler to behave as such. Hope this helps     
For anyone else with a similar error - I had this problem because I had a function, called from an atomic context, that used kzalloc(..., GFP_KERN) when it should have used GFP_NOWAIT or GFP_ATOMIC.
This is just one example of a function sleeping when you don't want to, which is something you have to be careful of in kernel programming.
Hope this is useful to somebody else!
Thanks for the former two answers, in my case it was enough to disable the preemption:
preempt_disable();
// Your code with locks and schedule()
preempt_enable();
                not accurate enough: as caf said, the locks must not sleep.   only spinlock qualify for that.   mutex lock cannot be used (me not sure?), as when mutex lock starts to wait, the CPU can be scheduled out to other processor (because inside mutex_lock() is a "might_sleep()" function call, which may result in voluntary rescheduling - because cond_resched() is called, even though you have set the preemption flag to off (that may result in another bug?), as voluntary scheduling is done when preemption flag is on?   let's discuss.
– Peter Teoh
                May 19, 2014 at 23:48
        Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.