linux-kernel - Re: [lkp] [sched/fair] 41e0d37f7a: divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANRm+CyYLDuWpK_jcvUsJoRM_NJ_MR495a2ELvdaz8LqXbq+sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 May 2016 19:51:14 +0800
From:	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	kernel test robot <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>, lkp@...org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <smuckle@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [sched/fair] 41e0d37f7a: divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP

2016-05-04 19:44 GMT+08:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> wrote:
>> 2016-05-03 20:15 GMT+08:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>:
>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 09:10:51AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core
>>>>> commit 41e0d37f7ac81297c07ba311e4ad39465b8c8295 ("sched/fair: Do not call cpufreq hook unless util changed")
>>>>
>
> [cut]
>
>>>>
>>>> That's intel_pstate.c:get_avg_frequency(), which assumes mperf != 0. It
>>>> being 0 seems to suggest intel_pstate_sample() hasn't been called yet or
>>>> so.
>>>
>>> Well, what's the tree based on?
>>>
>>> The mainline does this:
>>>
>>> bool sample_taken = intel_pstate_sample(cpu, time);
>>>
>>> if (sample_taken && !hwp_active)
>>>         intel_pstate_adjust_busy_pstate(cpu);
>>>
>>> and (the mainline version of) intel_pstate_sample() returns false when
>>> it is called for the first time after setting the update_util hook.
>>
>> The callsites in scheduler will set time to rq_clock(rq) when trigger
>> sample, so when time 0 will be used even if it is set just before
>> setting the update_util hook?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> time=0 is special as it will cause intel_pstate_sample() to return
> false on the next invocation.

Sample is driven by cpufreq_update_util() which uses rq_clock(rq) as
time parameter, so there is no opportunity to pass time 0 to
intel_pstate_sample().

Regards,
Wanpeng Li