Re: 2.5.66-mm1

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

At 11:45 AM 3/28/2003 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > That longer Code: line is really handy.
> >
> > You died in schedule()->deactivate_task()->dequeue_task().
> >
> > static inline void dequeue_task(struct task_struct *p, prio_array_t *array)
> > {
> >       array->nr_active--;
> >
> > `array' is zero.
> >
> > I'm going to Cc Ingo and run away.  Ed uses preempt.
>
>hm, this is an 'impossible' scenario from the scheduler code POV. Whenever
>we deactivate a task, we remove it from the runqueue and set p->array to
>NULL. Whenever we activate a task again, we set p->array to non-NULL. A
>double-deactivate is not possible. I tried to reproduce it with various
>scheduler workloads, but didnt succeed.
>
>Mike, do you have a backtrace of the crash you saw?

No, I didn't save it due to "grubby fingerprints".

         -Mike 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a>