[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080305135314.GA84@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:53:14 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Yi Yang <yi.y.yang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG 2.6.25-rc3] scheduler/hotplug: some processes are dealocked when cpu is set to offline
On 03/05, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/04, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > >
> > > So at times, the callback thread is blocked on kthread_stop(k) in
> > > softlockup.c, while other time, it was blocked in
> > > cleanup_workqueue_threads() in workqueue.c.
> >
> > >From another message:
> > >
> > > However, it remains in R< state
> >
> > What about cwq->thread? Was it TASK_RUNNING too?
>
> No, it was in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. The last thing it ever
> executed was the wait_for_completion in flush_cpu_workqueue()
You misunderstood ;) The task doing _cpu_down() hang in flush_cpu_workqueue(),
because cwq->thread doesn't want to die. But what was cwq->thread->state?
Could you try the patch? Yi constantly sees the tasks in R< state.
I am starting to suspect some scheduling issue.
Oleg.
--
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