Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Dec 2013 04:28:35 +0000 | From | Hedi Berriche <> | Subject | Re: [Regression] sched: division by zero in find_busiest_group() |
| |
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 18:10 Hedi Berriche wrote: | Folks, | | The following panic occurs *early* at boot time on high *enough* CPU count | machines: | | divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP | Modules linked in: | CPU: 22 PID: 1146 Comm: kworker/22:0 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc2-00122-gdea4f48 #8 | Hardware name: Intel Corp. Stoutland Platform, BIOS 2.20 UEFI2.10 PI1.0 X64 2013-09-20 | task: ffff8827d49f31c0 ti: ffff8827d4a18000 task.ti: ffff8827d4a18000 | RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff810a345b>] [<ffffffff810a345b>] find_busiest_group+0x26b/0x890 | RSP: 0000:ffff8827d4a19b68 EFLAGS: 00010006 | RAX: 0000000000007fff RBX: 0000000000008000 RCX: 0000000000000200 | RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000008000 RDI: 0000000000000020 | RBP: ffff8827d4a19cc0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 | R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000 | R13: ffff8827d4a19d28 R14: ffff8827d4a19b98 R15: 0000000000000000 | FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8827dfd80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 | CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b | CR2: 00000000000000b8 CR3: 00000000018da000 CR4: 00000000000007e0 | Stack: | ffff8827d4b35800 0000000000000000 0000000000014600 0000000000014600 | 0000000000000000 ffff8827d4b35818 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 | 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000008000 0000000000000000 | Call Trace: | [<ffffffff810a3be6>] load_balance+0x166/0x7f0 | [<ffffffff810a477e>] idle_balance+0x10e/0x1b0 | [<ffffffff815d83d3>] __schedule+0x723/0x780 | [<ffffffff815d8459>] schedule+0x29/0x70 | [<ffffffff810818b9>] worker_thread+0x1c9/0x400 | [<ffffffff810816f0>] ? rescuer_thread+0x3e0/0x3e0 | [<ffffffff81088562>] kthread+0xd2/0xf0 | [<ffffffff81088490>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180 | [<ffffffff815e437c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 | [<ffffffff81088490>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x180/0x180
Hmm...had time to dig into this a bit deeper and looking at build_overlap_sched_groups(), specifically this bit of code:
kernel/sched/core.c:
5066 static int 5067 build_overlap_sched_groups(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu) 5068 { ... 5109 /* 5110 * Initialize sgp->power such that even if we mess up the 5111 * domains and no possible iteration will get us here, we won't 5112 * die on a /0 trap. 5113 */ 5114 sg->sgp->power = SCHED_POWER_SCALE * cpumask_weight(sg_span);
I'm wondering whether the same precaution should be used when it comes to sg->sgp->power_orig.
Cheers, Hedi.
| |