From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Buggy IPI and MTRR code on low memory
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:55:38 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200901290955.38940.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901281029150.25359@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Thursday 29 January 2009 03:08:14 Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> While developing the RT git tree I came across this deadlock.
>
> To avoid touching the memory allocator in smp_call_function_many I forced
> the stack use case, the path that would be taken if data fails to
> allocate.
>
> Here's the current code in kernel/smp.c:
Interesting. I simplified smp_call_function_ma{sk,ny}, and introduced this bug (see 54b11e6d57a10aa9d0009efd93873e17bffd5d30).
We used to wait on OOM, yes, but we didn't do them one at a time.
We could restore that quiesce code, or call a function on all online cpus using on-stack data, and have them atomic_dec a counter when they're done (I'm not sure why we didn't do this in the first place: Nick?)
> The problem is that if we use the stack, then we must wait for the
> function to finish. But in the mtrr code, the called functions are waiting
> for the caller to do something after the smp_call_function. Thus we
> deadlock! This mtrr code seems to have been there for a while. At least
> longer than the git history.
I don't see how the *ever* worked then, even with the quiesce stuff.
> The patch creates another flag called CSD_FLAG_RELEASE. If we fail
> to alloc the data and the wait bit is not set, we still use the stack
> but we also set this flag instead of the wait flag. The receiving IPI
> will copy the data locally, and if this flag is set, it will clear it. The
> caller, after sending the IPI, will wait on this flag to be cleared.
Doesn't this break with more than one cpus? I think a refcnt is needed for the general case...
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-28 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-28 16:38 Buggy IPI and MTRR code on low memory Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 16:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 16:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 16:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 17:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 18:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-28 18:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 18:22 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-01-28 18:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 21:12 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 21:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 22:07 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 22:47 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 23:20 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-28 23:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-28 23:25 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-01-28 23:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 0:52 ` [PATCH] use per cpu data for single cpu ipi calls Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 1:30 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-29 1:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 11:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 13:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 14:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 15:08 ` [PATCH -v2] " Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 15:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 16:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-29 17:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 17:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 17:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 18:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 18:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-29 18:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-29 18:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 11:23 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:32 ` [PATCH -v3] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 12:38 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 12:55 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 12:56 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-30 13:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 13:02 ` [PATCH -v4] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-30 14:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 16:04 ` [PATCH -v3] " Linus Torvalds
2009-01-30 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-31 8:44 ` Jens Axboe
2009-01-29 18:49 ` [PATCH -v2] " Ingo Molnar
2009-01-30 1:55 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-29 17:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 17:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-29 18:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2009-01-30 1:11 ` Rusty Russell
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=200901290955.38940.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.