[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522053540.GA26857@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:05:40 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: spinlock recursion in migrate_swap_stop
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 927fa33..b5e11c7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1154,6 +1156,7 @@ int migrate_swap(struct task_struct *cur, struct task_struct *p)
> goto out;
>
> trace_sched_swap_numa(cur, arg.src_cpu, p, arg.dst_cpu);
> + BUG_ON(cur == p);
I am not sure how this check can ever be successful because at the start
of this function migrate_swap() we have
if (arg.src_cpu == arg.dst_cpu)
goto out;
if cur is actually p; then should the above condition should always be
successul right?
Or am I missing something?
> ret = stop_two_cpus(arg.dst_cpu, arg.src_cpu, migrate_swap_stop, &arg);
>
> out:
>
>
> Which seems to get hit. This sounds like a race with task moving to
> other cpu maybe?
>
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
--
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