linux-kernel - Re: sched: WARNING: at include/linux/cpumask.h:108 select_fallback

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:40:28 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	mingo@...nel.org, "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>,
	vapier@...too.org, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: sched: WARNING: at include/linux/cpumask.h:108 select_fallback_rq+0x241/0x280()

On 03/30/2012 02:02 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:

> (and now with lkml)
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I got the following spew using trinity in a kvm tools guest on the
> latest linux-next kernel.
> 
> This is the result of trying to offline CPU1. I'm not sure how to
> reproduce it easily besides putting some pressure on the system and
> shutting down CPUs until it happens.
> 
> [  317.238839] Cannot set affinity for irq 0
> [  317.238839] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [  317.238839] WARNING: at include/linux/cpumask.h:108
> select_fallback_rq+0x241/0x280()
> [  317.238839] Pid: 13, comm: migration/1 Not tainted
> 3.3.0-next-20120329-sasha #4
> [  317.238839] Call Trace:
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810b26b5>] warn_slowpath_common+0x75/0xb0
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810b2705>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810e5991>] select_fallback_rq+0x241/0x280
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810f1a40>] ? dequeue_task_fair+0x100/0x100
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810f1a40>] ? dequeue_task_fair+0x100/0x100
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810ecd20>] migrate_tasks+0x80/0xf0
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff826fe03a>] ? migration_call+0xae/0x16b
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff826fe073>] migration_call+0xe7/0x16b
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810ddebf>] notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x150
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810ddfb9>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0x10
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810b489b>] __cpu_notify+0x1b/0x30
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff826c3fbd>] take_cpu_down+0x2d/0x40
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff811357fa>] stop_machine_cpu_stop+0xda/0x1a0
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff81135720>] ? queue_stop_cpus_work+0x190/0x190
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff811352ae>] cpu_stopper_thread+0xee/0x200
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff82705c1a>] ? __schedule+0x49a/0x860
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff811351c0>] ? res_counter_init+0x50/0x50
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810d715e>] kthread+0xbe/0xd0
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff82709e74>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810e3ee0>] ? finish_task_switch+0x80/0x110
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff82708174>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff810d70a0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
> [  317.238839]  [<ffffffff82709e70>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
> [  317.238839] ---[ end trace 79079cf527253aab ]---
> [  317.250645] [sched_delayed] process 2267 (trinity) no longer affine to cpu1
> [  317.323711] CPU 1 is now offline
> [  317.591059] [sched_delayed] process 1956 (trinity) no longer affine to cpu1
> [  317.812110] [sched_delayed] process 2004 (trinity) no longer affine to cpu1
> [  318.401016] [sched_delayed] process 2228 (trinity) no longer affine to cpu1
> [  318.581015] [sched_delayed] process 2099 (trinity) no longer affine to cpu1
> --



Does this patch help?

---

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: sched: Fix incorrect usage of for_each_cpu_mask() in select_fallback_rq()

The function for_each_cpu_mask() expects a *pointer* to struct cpumask
as its second argument, whereas select_fallback_rq() passes the value
itself. And moreover, for_each_cpu_mask() has been marked as obselete
in include/linux/cpumask.h. So move to the more appropriate for_each_cpu()
variant.

Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---

 kernel/sched/core.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index e3ed0ec..e85046d 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1270,7 +1270,7 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
 	int dest_cpu;
 
 	/* Look for allowed, online CPU in same node. */
-	for_each_cpu_mask(dest_cpu, *nodemask) {
+	for_each_cpu(dest_cpu, nodemask) {
 		if (!cpu_online(dest_cpu))
 			continue;
 		if (!cpu_active(dest_cpu))
@@ -1281,7 +1281,7 @@ static int select_fallback_rq(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
 
 	for (;;) {
 		/* Any allowed, online CPU? */
-		for_each_cpu_mask(dest_cpu, *tsk_cpus_allowed(p)) {
+		for_each_cpu(dest_cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p)) {
 			if (!cpu_online(dest_cpu))
 				continue;
 			if (!cpu_active(dest_cpu))


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/