[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564e45cb-8230-9c3d-24a8-b58e6e88349f@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 10:30:26 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: "Schmid, Carsten" <Carsten_Schmid@...tor.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Crash in fair scheduler
On 03/12/2019 09:11, Schmid, Carsten wrote:
[...]
> set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> {
> /* 'current' is not kept within the tree. */
> if (se->on_rq) { <<<<<<< crash here
>
> set_next_entity is called from within pick_next_task_fair, from the following piece of code:
> static struct task_struct *
> pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> {
> struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> struct sched_entity *se;
> struct task_struct *p;
> int new_tasks;
>
> again:
> if (!cfs_rq->nr_running) // this is 1, so we are not going to idle
> goto idle;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> if (prev->sched_class != &fair_sched_class) <<<<< this is true:
> crash> p &fair_sched_class
> $1 = (const struct sched_class *) 0xffffffffaaa10cc0 <<<<
> crash> $prev=ffff99a97895a580
> crash> gdb set $prev=(struct task_struct *)0xffff99a97895a580
> crash> p $prev->sched_class
> $2 = (const struct sched_class *) 0xffffffffaaa10b40 <<<<
> goto simple; <<<< so we go to simple
> ....
> (Line 6360, Kernel 4.14.86; Line 6820 Kernel v5.4-rc2)
> simple:
> #endif
>
> put_prev_task(rq, prev);
>
> do {
> se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, NULL); <<<< this returns se=NULL
> set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se); <<<<<<<< here we crash
> cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
> } while (cfs_rq);
>
> So why is se = NULL returned?
That looks a lot like a recent issue we've had, see
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191108131909.428842459@infradead.org/
The issue is caused by
67692435c411 ("sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path")
which 5.4-rc2 has (without the fix which landed in -rc7) but 4.14 really
shouldn't, unless the kernel you're using has had core scheduling somehow
backported to it?
I've only scraped the surface but I'd like to first ask: can you reproduce
the issue on v5.4 final ?
> Best regards
> Carsten
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists