Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jan 2021 07:22:07 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Print out straggler tasks in sched_cpu_dying() |
| |
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:37:35AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 13/01/21 16:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:15:24AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > >> On 13/01/21 14:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> Thanks for giving it a spin! I think with the current series (either > >> Lai's or Peter's) sched_cpu_dying() should go smoothly, but you never > >> know. > > > > I was running the patch set having one of Lai's and three of Peter's, > > which sounds like Peter's. > > That's how I was seeing it :)
If someone can identify Lai's series to me, I would be happy to give it a try as well. All I see are workqueue-specific patches and patches contributing to the discussion of possible fixes to the splats from Peter's series. (I figured that I would wait for the discussion to converge a bit.)
> > If I understand which series is which, > > Peter's has the advantage of not requiring rcutorture changes. ;-) > > > >> > However, it did produce the following new-to-me splat, which will > >> > hopefully be of some help. > >> > > >> > Thanx, Paul > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > > >> > WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 23 at kernel/kthread.c:508 kthread_set_per_cpu+0x3b/0x50 > >> > >> Aha, so that's that warning I was expecting to see [1]. > >> Did you also get the process_one_work() one? > > > > Yes. Of 112 one-hour runs, there were five process_one_work() splats > > and two kthread_set_per_cpu() splats. Each splat-ridden run had exactly > > one splat. > > I was expecting to see both in one run, so am still somewhat confused.
Well, if we weren't confused in some way or another, the bug would not exist, so I will count becoming aware of confusion as a step forward. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |