Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:12:27 +0900 | From | Kenji Kaneshige <> | Subject | Re: Kernel oops in resched_task() with 2.6.31.5 |
| |
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, Kenji Kaneshige
| |