Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:15:37 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Kernel oops in resched_task() with 2.6.31.5 |
| |
* Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > >Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 21:31 +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > >>>Hi, > >>> > >>>I frequently encounter the kernel oops attached below in resched_task() > >>>with 2.6.31.5. This kernel oops happens also with 2.6.32-rc5. I don't > >>>know about other kernel. > >>> > >>>Here is my analysis: > >>> > >>>The immediate cause of this kernel oops is that NULL was passed to > >>>resched_task() from resched_cpu(). From my investigation, this was > >>>caused as follows: > >>> > >>>- trigger_load_balance() caluculated cpu number of idle load balancer > >>> using find_new_ilb(), and find_new_ilb() returned *offline* CPU > >>> number (16 in my case). Note that I didn't do any CPU hotplug > >>> operation. On my system, present, online and offline under > >>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/ are > >>> > >>> [kanesige@localhost ~]$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/present > >>> 0-15 > >>> [kanesige@localhost ~]$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/online > >>> 0-15 > >>> [kanesige@localhost ~]$ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/offline > >>> 16-255 > >>> > >>> And nr_cpu_ids is 256. > >>> > >>>- resched_cpu() calculated current task by cpu_curr() with offline CPU > >>> number. > >>> > >>>So this kernel oops seems to be caused by invalid CPU number returned > >>>from find_new_ilb(). I don't know the find_new_ilb() implementation, > >>>but I suspect the initialization of cpumasks used by find_new_ilb(). > >>>The patch attached below seems to fix the problem (With this patch, > >>>the kernel oops doesn't happen). But I don't know if this is the > >>>correct fix. > >> > >>Please send patches against -tip. > >> > >>You might find that Rusty has already fixed a similar issue there in > >>commit: 49557e620339cb134127b5bfbcfecc06b77d0232. > >> > >>Now, Rusty's patch does not clear the ilb mask, so maybe it doesn't > >>fully cover your issue, please test. > >> > > > >Thank you for quick response. > > > >I didn't notice Rusty's fix. > >I'll look at and test it tomorrow. > > > > I tested Rusty's patch and confirmed it fixes the problem.
Thanks.
-stable team, please cherry-pick this upstream commit for .31.x:
49557e6: sched: Fix boot crash by zalloc()ing most of the cpu masks
Ingo
| |