[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060731101542.A2817@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:15:43 -0700
From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, vatsa@...ibm.com, Simon.Derr@...l.net,
steiner@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] sched: big numa dynamic sched domain memory corruption
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:54:29AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Paul can you please test the mainline code and confirm?
>
> Sure - which version of Linus and/or Andrew's tree is the minimum
> worth testing?
>
> Could you explain why you don't think the mainline has this
> problem? I still see the critical code piece there:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> if (cpus_weight(*cpu_map)
> > SD_NODES_PER_DOMAIN*cpus_weight(nodemask)) {
This code piece is not the culprit. In 2.6.16, the mechanism of setting
up group power for allnodes_domains is wrong(which is actually causing
this issue in the presence of dynamic sched groups patch) and the mainline
has fixes for all these issues.
> What other critical bugs are fixed between the SLES10 variant
> and the mainline?
Basically SLES10 has to backport all these patches:
sched: fix group power for allnodes_domains
sched_domai: Allocate sched_group structures dynamically
sched: build_sched_domains() fix
thanks,
suresh
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists