Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2014 10:19:05 +0800 | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | Re: workqueue: WARN at at kernel/workqueue.c:2176 |
| |
On 05/13/2014 04:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:58:55PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next >> kernel I've stumbled on the following spew: >> >> [ 1297.886670] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 190 at kernel/workqueue.c:2176 process_one_work+0xb5/0x6f0() >> [ 1297.889216] Modules linked in: >> [ 1297.890306] CPU: 0 PID: 190 Comm: kworker/3:0 Not tainted 3.15.0-rc5-next-20140512-sasha-00019-ga20bc00-dirty #456 >> [ 1297.893258] 0000000000000009 ffff88010c5d7ce8 ffffffffb153e1ec 0000000000000002 >> [ 1297.893258] 0000000000000000 ffff88010c5d7d28 ffffffffae15fd6c ffff88010cdd6c98 >> [ 1297.893258] ffff8806285d4000 ffffffffb3cd09e0 ffff88010cdde000 0000000000000000 >> [ 1297.893258] Call Trace: >> [ 1297.893258] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52) >> [ 1297.893258] warn_slowpath_common (kernel/panic.c:430) >> [ 1297.893258] warn_slowpath_null (kernel/panic.c:465) >> [ 1297.893258] process_one_work (kernel/workqueue.c:2174 (discriminator 38)) >> [ 1297.893258] worker_thread (kernel/workqueue.c:2354) >> [ 1297.893258] kthread (kernel/kthread.c:210) >> [ 1297.893258] ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:553)
Hi,
I have been trying to address this bug. Buy I can't reproduce this bug. Is your testing arch X86? if yes, could you find out how to reproduce the bug?
Thanks, Lai
> > Hmm, this is "percpu worker on the wrong CPU while the current > workqueue state indicates it should be on the CPU it's bound to" > warning. We had a similar and more reproducible report a couple > months back. > > http://lkml.kernel.org/g/52F4F01C.1070800@linux.vnet.ibm.com > > We added some debug code back then and it looked like the worker was > setting the right cpus_allowed mask and the cpu was up but still > ending up on the wrong CPU. Peter was looking into it and, ooh, I > missed his last message and it fell through the crack. We probably > should follow up on that thread. > > Thanks. >
| |