[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141110161656.GC10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:16:56 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/numa: fix unsafe get_task_struct() in
task_numa_assign()
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:09:29AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/10/2014 11:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:48:27PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> [ 829.539183] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#10, trinity-c594/11067
> >> [ 829.539203] lock: 0xffff880631dd6b80, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: trinity-c594/11067, .owner_cpu: 13
> >
> > Ooh, look at that. CPU#10 vs .owner_cpu: 13 on the _same_ task.
> >
> > One of those again :/
>
> Hum. I missed that one.
>
> Hold on, but the magic here is fine and the owner pointer is fine, why would just the owner cpu
> be wrong?
I've no clue, but I've seen them before. Complete mystery that.
--
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