[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110824160806.GA12317@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:08:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "J.H." <warthog9@...nel.org>, users@...nel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
"yong.zhang0" <yong.zhang0@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
scameron@...rdog.cce.hp.com,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
hch <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] [KORG] Panics on master backend
Looking at the next emails, I guess this is already off-topic, but still...
On 08/23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2630,7 +2630,6 @@ static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
> }
>
> -#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
> static int ttwu_activate_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
> {
> struct rq *rq;
> @@ -2647,7 +2646,6 @@ static int ttwu_activate_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
> return ret;
>
> }
> -#endif /* __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW */
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> static void ttwu_queue(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> @@ -2705,7 +2703,6 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> * this task as prev, wait until its done referencing the task.
> */
> while (p->on_cpu) {
> -#ifdef __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
> /*
> * In case the architecture enables interrupts in
> * context_switch(), we cannot busy wait, since that
> @@ -2713,11 +2710,11 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> * tries to wake up @prev. So bail and do a complete
> * remote wakeup.
> */
> - if (ttwu_activate_remote(p, wake_flags))
> + if (cpu == smp_processor_id() &&
I think this needs "task_cpu(p) == smp_processor_id()". We can't trust
"cpu", task_cpu() was called before ->on_rq check.
This task_cpu() looks really confusing imho, even if it is fine (afaics).
Perhaps it makes sense to do
--- x/kernel/sched.c
+++ x/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2694,10 +2694,11 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
goto out;
success = 1; /* we're going to change ->state */
- cpu = task_cpu(p);
- if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
+ if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags)) {
+ cpu = task_cpu(p); /* for ttwu_stat() */
goto stat;
+ }
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/*
to make this more clear. Or even the patch below, I dunno.
Oleg.
--- x/kernel/sched.c
+++ x/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2446,13 +2446,14 @@ static void update_avg(u64 *avg, u64 sam
#endif
static void
-ttwu_stat(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int wake_flags)
+ttwu_stat(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
struct rq *rq = this_rq();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ int cpu = task_cpu(p);
if (cpu == this_cpu) {
schedstat_inc(rq, ttwu_local);
@@ -2694,7 +2695,6 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
goto out;
success = 1; /* we're going to change ->state */
- cpu = task_cpu(p);
if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
goto stat;
@@ -2739,7 +2739,7 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, un
ttwu_queue(p, cpu);
stat:
- ttwu_stat(p, cpu, wake_flags);
+ ttwu_stat(p, wake_flags);
out:
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
@@ -2775,7 +2775,7 @@ static void try_to_wake_up_local(struct
ttwu_activate(rq, p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, 0);
- ttwu_stat(p, smp_processor_id(), 0);
+ ttwu_stat(p, 0);
out:
raw_spin_unlock(&p->pi_lock);
}
--
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