[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Crash in fair scheduler
On 03/12/2019 12:09, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 03/12/2019 10:40, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 03/12/2019 11:30, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2019 09:11, Schmid, Carsten wrote:
>> [...]
>>> That looks a lot like a recent issue we've had, see
>>> 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 ?
>> Can't be. 4.14.86 does not have ("sched: Rework pick_next_task()
>> slow-path").
> Right, which is why I wondered if the kernel under test had had that
> backported to it for some reason (e.g. core scheduling). Peter pointed out
> that this is a slightly different issue (nr_running matches the rbt), so
> this is probably unrelated.

I can't reproduce it on Arm64 Juno running 4.14.86. I suppose that there
is no extra reproducer testcase since the issue happened with
prev->sched_class eq. &idle_sched_class [prev eq. swapper/X 0] in the
simple path of pick_next_task_fair().

some taskgroup related tests for hours now. So the sched_entity (se) can
be a task, an autogroup or a taskgroup in the simple path. pref is
either swapper/X or migration/X.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-03 16:09    [W:0.074 / U:2.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site