On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 12:16:44PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > В Чт, 16/10/2014 в 09:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:46:07AM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > > > --- x/kernel/sched/fair.c > > > > +++ x/kernel/sched/fair.c > > > > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct tas > > > > > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > > cur = ACCESS_ONCE(dst_rq->curr); > > > > - if (cur->pid == 0) /* idle */ > > > > + if (is_idle_task(cur) || (curr->flags & PF_EXITING)) > > > > cur = NULL; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > > > > > > Looks like, we have to use the same fix for task_numa_group(). > > > > Don't think so, task_numa_group() is only called from task_numa_fault() > > which is on 'current' and neither idle and PF_EXITING should be > > faulting. > > Isn't task_numa_group() fully preemptible?
Not seeing how that is relevant. > It seems cpu_rq(cpu)->curr is not always equal to p. It should be afaict: task_numa_fault() p = current; task_numa_group(p, ..); And like said, idle tasks and PF_EXITING task should never get (numa) faults for they should never be touching userspace. -- 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/
