Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:28:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:28:45 -0400 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:45329 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:28:44 -0400 Subject: non-atomic test victim #1 From: Robert Love To: mingo@elte.hu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 17 Sep 2002 16:33:33 -0400 Message-Id: <1032294813.4592.241.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1380 Lines: 37 Current kernel with the non-atomic test I sent, SMP with preemption. I only get two triggers, both during boot. They are on migration_thread and ksoftirqd startup. The problem lies in set_cpus_allowed(): Trace; c0116ac4 Trace; c011731a Trace; c0116f30 Trace; c0115d02 Trace; c0116f30 Trace; c0118f0f Trace; c0118f7d Trace; c0118f30 Trace; c0118f30 Trace; c010586d It is obviously the preempt_disable() which we hold past the wake_up(). The issue is that, without this preempt_disable() there have been observed crashes, especially on large n-way machines. Both Andrew Morton and Anton Blanchard have reported the problem and that this fixes it. Question is, why does set_cpus_allowed() need it? I do not see it... it must be an issue with an early preemption and the resulting migration_thread? Ingo, ideas? Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/