Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:06:20 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: WARNING at kernel/sched/core.c:2013 migration_cpu_stop+0x2e3/0x330 |
| |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:00:14AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > On 15/11/20 22:32, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > > Hi. > > > > I'm running v5.10-rc3-rt7 for some time, and I came across this splat in > > dmesg: > > > > ``` > > [118769.951010] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [118769.951013] WARNING: CPU: 19 PID: 146 at kernel/sched/core.c:2013 > > Err, I didn't pick up on this back then, but isn't that check bogus? If the > task is enqueued elsewhere, it's valid for it not to be affined > 'here'. Also that is_migration_disabled() check within is_cpu_allowed() > makes me think this isn't the best thing to call on a remote task. > > --- > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 1218f3ce1713..47d5b677585f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -2010,7 +2010,7 @@ static int migration_cpu_stop(void *data) > * valid again. Nothing to do. > */ > if (!pending) { > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_cpu_allowed(p, cpu_of(rq))); > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), p->cpus_ptr));
Ho humm.. bit of a mess that. I'm trying to figure out if we need that is_per_cpu_kthread() test here or not.
I suppose not, what we want here is to ensure the CPU is in cpus_mask and not care about the whole hotplug mess.
Would it makes sense to replace both instances in migration_cpu_stop() with:
WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpumask_test_cpu(task_cpu(p), p->cpus_mask));
?
| |