On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:01:55AM -0500, Jason J. Herne wrote: > On 02/14/2014 11:25 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > >... > >Hmmm... weird, p's rq shouldn't have changed without its cpus_allowed > >busted. Anyways, let's wait for Jason's test results and see whether > >this is a regression at all. > > I was unable to determine exactly when this behavior was introduced. > The reason for this is because I keep hitting other bugs that > prevent the test case from running, the most notable of which causes > an immediate system hang. I also hit other warnings and bug messages > and I'm not sure if they are related or if they will influence the > probability of hitting the problem we are trying to solve here. > What I did find is the following: > > We hit this problem as far back as v3.10. > The warning was introduced after v3.5 but before v3.6.
That's a bummer but it at least isn't a very new regression. Peter, any ideas on debugging this? I can make workqueue to play block / unblock dance to try to work around the issue but that'd be very yucky. It'd be great to root cause where the cpu selection anomaly is coming from. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
