From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: mmotm threatens ppc preemption again
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:53:08 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1300665188.2402.64.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1103192041390.1592@sister.anvils>
On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 21:11 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> As I warned a few weeks ago, Jeremy has vmalloc apply_to_pte_range
> patches in mmotm, which again assault PowerPC's expectations, and
> cause lots of noise with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG=y.
>
> This time in vmalloc as well as vfree; and Peter's fix to the last
> lot, which went into 2.6.38, doesn't protect against these ones.
> Here's what I now see when I swapon and swapoff:
Right. And we said from day one we had the HARD WIRED assumption that
arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu_mode() was ALWAYS going to be called within
a PTE lock section, and we did get reassurance that it was going to
remain so.
So why is it ok for them to change those and break us like that ?
Seriously, this is going out of control. If we can't even rely on
fundamental locking assumptions in the VM to remain reasonably stable
or at least get some amount of -care- from who changes them as to
whether they break others and work with us to fix them, wtf ?
I don't know what the right way to fix that is. We have an absolute
requirement that the batching we start within a lazy MMU section
is complete and flushed before any other PTE in that section can be
touched by anything else. Do we -at least- keep that guarantee ?
If yes, then maybe preempt_disable/enable() around
arch_enter/leave_lazy_mmu_mode() in apply_to_pte_range() would do...
Or maybe I should just prevent any batching of init_mm :-(
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-20 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-20 4:11 mmotm threatens ppc preemption again Hugh Dickins
2011-03-20 23:53 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2011-03-21 1:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-03-21 1:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-21 2:20 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-03-21 2:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-30 20:53 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-30 21:07 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-03-31 0:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-31 17:21 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-03-31 20:38 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-05-18 23:29 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-03-21 11:24 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-03-21 22:52 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-03-22 13:34 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1300665188.2402.64.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.