From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C0E41CE71B for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:55:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724342121; cv=none; b=PagTOixaC+78mtyWyiuNZy7tUABV90wZE8SXP4Z/E3jLpDQA2gy+8jkBECmMN18MxgroCPjWlcvu3zt8A4YDbV3tDKFE8b9624nSZa/Q0mnVoMtZ4GeFZ1DI85NO+AMvwxoz3j5jFiWL629SnM16bT2xaEufIG3m9l9bMVAX9hs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724342121; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jdwuLAb4tfrdQ0WNu15vvEX060UAwSVPW6HKAaf2qyw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NMreHKGu5wLuDde13bG1SDoOmOZw/nCC4NcnsX1gx4G/FYDdxz2aVae4/dr/hBAybZajDgwIm8T9UkHaBDAJKu/qNCIynKnYcQn33e2mNZo/V58KyA/0Iw4/tq95I9cWYnBO1k4B4ES9Q9AGoHBk7poigBYpa+/Rzbe9kkWyAQE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b=I3O0vdCZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=90.155.50.34 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=infradead.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="I3O0vdCZ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=zDYD8mwxX6eQtQZYTIeuMaOPon4Wwg8QX/pqSpudFzE=; b=I3O0vdCZyUOzzAjF5VVolfkg70 jJJ85HbyzHF7slSTbm8VM/w/vuaL/IDydFRo4QsiPXUdCrlAsiKZqW/7AubgvM5x7UbfJVCUv0P6y OcFHVZu3enA5oCKgHSzR6Oz8tljkCpv4VJg4icoxEc2pr2j7IpdgOZIHcapANlRvimplrFyvcZ9Sh uvhthsMVN1W9R+n6RgkXYMbB5a+lm6K8WCEMYKG5w1sK+cSxKdA+/RKH11kQ2z/Nw3X1+iy3G0nCP 8tARGdH+DZatAebmUkWpdLE695TJl4xOFFGS4acKlkyZ3i4kuXHTAdPsCvb3MlQHQRAr20I0cqxk1 5bGtR6BQ==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1shA9Q-0000000AgSE-1KXQ; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:55:04 +0000 Received: by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4900300642; Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:55:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:55:03 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Hongyan Xia Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kprateek.nayak@amd.com, wuyun.abel@bytedance.com, youssefesmat@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/24] Complete EEVDF Message-ID: <20240822155503.GC17097@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20240727102732.960974693@infradead.org> <717e6294-5c62-415c-bc8b-5da1d8ac3642@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <717e6294-5c62-415c-bc8b-5da1d8ac3642@arm.com> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:46:07AM +0100, Hongyan Xia wrote: > Okay, in case the trace I provided isn't clear enough, I traced the crash to > a call chain like this: > > dl_server_start() > enqueue_dl_entity() > update_stats_enqueue_dl() > update_stats_enqueue_sleeper_dl() > __schedstats_from_dl_se() > dl_task_of() <---------- crash > > If I undefine CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS, then it boots fine, and I wonder if this is > the reason why other people are not seeing this. This is probably not EEVDF > but DL refactoring related. Thanks for the report -- I'll see if I can spot something. Since you initially fingered these eevdf patches, could you confirm or deny that changing: kernel/sched/features.h:SCHED_FEAT(DELAY_DEQUEUE, true) to false, makes any difference in the previously failing case?