From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752834AbaBXPCD (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:02:03 -0500 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:40003 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752181AbaBXPCB (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:02:01 -0500 Message-ID: <530B5EE3.8050200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:01:55 -0500 From: "Jason J. Herne" Reply-To: jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo , Peter Zijlstra CC: Lai Jiangshan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Subject: Warning in workqueue.c References: <20140207165113.GD3304@htj.dyndns.org> <52F51E10.8050208@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140207193604.GA8833@htj.dyndns.org> <52F8F0FB.3080206@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140210231742.GK25350@mtj.dyndns.org> <52FB90C6.4010701@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52FC3C83.8020303@cn.fujitsu.com> <52FD07B2.5080402@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140213204102.GC17608@htj.dyndns.org> <20140214160923.GK27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140214162556.GF31544@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20140214162556.GF31544@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14022415-0320-0000-0000-00000288A1A0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- -- Jason J. Herne (jjherne@linux.vnet.ibm.com)