Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:22:24 +0200 | From | "Dmitry Adamushko" <> | Subject | Re: recent -git: BUG in free_thread_xstate |
| |
2008/7/23 Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Suresh Siddha > <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 01:07:04PM -0700, Vegard Nossum wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I just got this on c010b2f76c3032e48097a6eef291d8593d5d79a6 (-git from >>> yesterday): >> >> Do you see this in 2.6.26 aswell? I suspect it is coming from post 2.6.26 >> changes. >> > > Humm... I got something different now on plain 2.6.26: > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > WARNING: at kernel/sched_fair.c:815 hrtick_start_fair+0x158/0x170()
that's interesting. As a first step and if it's easily reproducible, would you try something like below?
(hope, it compiles :-)
If it doesn't crash immediately, then 'p' is likely to be a real task (well, we'll see then with p->comm) and if its cpu is different from rq->cpu (must be in this case), then we might have a funny race somewhere...
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c @@ -813,6 +813,9 @@ static void hrtick_start_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
WARN_ON(task_rq(p) != rq); + if (task_rq(p) != rq) + printk(KERN_ERR "task (%s)'s cpu (%d), rq's (%d)\n", + p->comm, task_cpu(p), rq->cpu);
if (hrtick_enabled(rq) && cfs_rq->nr_running > 1) { u64 slice = sched_slice(cfs_rq, se); > > [ ... ] >
-- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko
| |