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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:32 EST