[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwQSmBAs=QH9jAZz5JY7YFrDeuPH1RjFH+YKVr2NQM38g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:12:35 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Random panic in load_balance() with 3.16-rc
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:54:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> And I wonder if I have a clue. Look, load_balance_mask is a
>> "cpumask_var_t", but I don't see a "alloc_cpumask_var()" for it.
>> That's broken with CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.
>
> kernel/sched/core.c:sched_init()
>
> plays horrible allocation tricks..
No it does not. It allocates a cpumask. Nothing more. If you think it
allocates a "cpumask_var()", you are wrong.
I agree that the code is an unreadable mess, but that's what
"cpumask_size()" is: the minimum required size of the bitmask in a
cpumask.
A cpumask_var is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. It's *either* a cpumask _or_ just
a pointer to an externally allocated cpumask.
sched_init() definitely does _not_ allocate a cpumask_var.
Linus
--
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