Re: sched: BUG in load_balance
From: Sasha Levin
Date: Mon Feb 18 2013 - 21:20:07 EST
On 02/18/2013 08:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 19:55 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest, running today's -next,
>> I've stumbled on the following spew.
>> I've cc'ed Steven Rostedt since the culprit looks like "sched: Enable
>> interrupts in idle_balance()".
> You're correct. Interrupts are ok but softirqs must still be disabled.
> The following patch should work.
> -- Steve
> Only compiled tested:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 0fcdbff..a31174c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5222,9 +5222,9 @@ void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
> update_rq_runnable_avg(this_rq, 1);
> - * Drop the rq->lock, but keep preempt disabled.
> + * Drop the rq->lock, but keep softirqs disabled.
> - preempt_disable();
> + local_bh_disable();
> @@ -5253,7 +5253,7 @@ void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
> - preempt_enable();
> + local_bh_enable();
I have to admit, I'm slightly confused with the patch: there's a raw_spin_lock_irq()
followed by local_bh_enable(). afaik it's illegal to call local_bh_enable() with
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/