[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140723182413.GC3935@laptop>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:24:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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 10:12:35AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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 was merely saying 'something' got allocated, but yes I'll agree its
not a cpumask_var_t thingy.
> 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.
Latest patch cures at least this part of that mess.
--
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