[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191107154239.GE4114@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 16:42:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aaron.lwe@...il.com, valentin.schneider@....com, mingo@...nel.org,
pauld@...hat.com, jdesfossez@...italocean.com,
naravamudan@...italocean.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
kernel-team@...roid.com, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:12:07PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 07.11.2019 16:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Urgh... throttling.
> One more thing about current code in git. After rq->lock became able to
> be unlocked after put_prev_task() is commited, we got a new corner case.
> We usually had the same order for running task:
>
> dequeue_task()
> put_prev_task()
>
> Now the order may be reversed (this is also in case of throttling):
>
> put_prev_task() (called from pick_next_task())
> dequeue_task() (called from another cpu)
>
> This is more theoretically, since I don't see a problem here. But there are
> too many statistics and counters in sched_class methods, that it is impossible
> to be sure all of them work as expected.
Hmm,.. where does throttling happen on a remote CPU? I through both
cfs-bandwidth and dl throttle locally.
Or are you talking about NO_HZ_FULL's sched_remote_tick() ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists