From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030328152305.019b3e70@pop.gmx.net> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:26:52 +0100 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: 2.5.66-mm1 In-Reply-To: References: <20030327205912.753c6d53.akpm@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton , Ed Tomlinson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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: aart@kvack.org