[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190724174315.GC569612@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 10:43:15 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+4d497898effeb1936245@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next boot error: WARNING: workqueue cpumask: online
intersect > possible intersect
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:41:29AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> The real boot error "general protection fault in dma_direct_max_mapping_size" is
> fixed in mainline now. I believe that unblocks syzbot testing, since it doesn't
> appear to have been blocked by "WARNING: workqueue cpumask: online intersect >
> possible intersect" by itself.
>
> Anyway: Tejun and Michael, any other ideas for why "WARNING: workqueue cpumask:
> online intersect > possible intersect" is still happening?
That code hasn't changed in years. It gotta be changes in cpumask
initialization ordering or sth like that. The easiest way to find the
culprit would be bisecting. I can't get to it right now. Anyone
interested?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists