Re: [BUG] [ tip/sched/core ] System unresponsive after booting

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

On 01/16/2014 03:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 02:48:51PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> 3570  sched_getparam(3570, { 0 })       = 0
>> 3570  sched_getscheduler(3570)          = 0 (SCHED_OTHER)
>> 3570  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3570  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3571  sched_setscheduler(3572, SCHED_OTHER, { 0 } <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_setscheduler resumed> ) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_get_priority_min resumed> ) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_get_priority_max resumed> ) = 0
>> 3571  sched_setscheduler(3573, SCHED_OTHER, { 0 } <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_setscheduler resumed> ) = -1 EPERM (Operation not
>> permitted)
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_get_priority_min resumed> ) = 0
>> 3571  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_get_priority_max resumed> ) = 0
>> 3571  sched_setscheduler(3574, SCHED_OTHER, { 0 } <unfinished ...>
>> 3571  <... sched_setscheduler resumed> ) = -1 EPERM (Operation not
>> permitted)
>>
>> The same strace but on a kernel which does not hang. The calls to
>> sched_setscheduler do not fail.
>>
>> 3292  sched_getparam(3292, { 0 })       = 0
>> 3292  sched_getscheduler(3292)          = 0 (SCHED_OTHER)
>> 3292  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3292  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER) = 0
>> 3293  sched_setscheduler(3294, SCHED_OTHER, { 0 } <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_setscheduler resumed> ) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_get_priority_min resumed> ) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_get_priority_max resumed> ) = 0
>> 3293  sched_setscheduler(3295, SCHED_OTHER, { 0 } <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_setscheduler resumed> ) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_min(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_get_priority_min resumed> ) = 0
>> 3293  sched_get_priority_max(SCHED_OTHER <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_get_priority_max resumed> ) = 0
>> 3293  sched_setscheduler(3296, SCHED_OTHER, { 0 } <unfinished ...>
>> 3293  <... sched_setscheduler resumed> ) = 0
>>
>> The EPERM error comes from kernel/sched/core.c:3303
>>
>> ...
>> 		if (fair_policy(policy)) {
>> 			if (!can_nice(p, attr->sched_nice))
>> 				return -EPERM;
>> 		}
>> ...
>>
>>
>> But I don't know why this is leading to block a process or making rsyslogd
>> being not woken up by a packet coming in the af_unix socket.
>
> Could you test with a fresh tip/master, Ingo just pushed out a stack of
> fixes, in particularly:
>
> e3de300d1212b ("sched: Preserve the nice level over sched_setscheduler() and sched_setparam() calls")
> 39fd8fd22b322 ("sched: Fix up scheduler syscall LTP fails")
>
> Could have affected things.
>
> Meanwhile I'll try and better read what the above says.

Already tested. The last commits do not change the issue described above.


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog