From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
cl@linux-foundation.org, menage@google.com,
nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com,
penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:09:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090724160936.a3b8ad29.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907241551070.8573@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > numactl --interleave=all simply passes a nodemask with all bits set, so if
> > cpuset_current_mems_allowed includes offline nodes from node_possible_map,
> > then mpol_set_nodemask() doesn't mask them off.
> >
> > Seems like we could handle this strictly in mempolicies without worrying
> > about top_cpuset like in the following?
> > ---
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ static int mpol_new_bind(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > {
> > nodemask_t cpuset_context_nmask;
> > + nodemask_t mems_allowed;
> > int ret;
> >
> > /* if mode is MPOL_DEFAULT, pol is NULL. This is right. */
> > @@ -201,20 +202,21 @@ static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > return 0;
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON(!nodes);
> > + nodes_and(mems_allowed, cpuset_current_mems_allowed,
> > + node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> > if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && nodes_empty(*nodes))
> > nodes = NULL; /* explicit local allocation */
> > else {
> > if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
> > mpol_relative_nodemask(&cpuset_context_nmask, nodes,
> > - &cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > + &mems_allowed);
> > else
> > nodes_and(cpuset_context_nmask, *nodes,
> > - cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > + mems_allowed);
> > if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol))
> > pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
> > else
> > - pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed =
> > - cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
> > + pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = mems_allowed;
> > }
> >
> > ret = mpol_ops[pol->mode].create(pol,
> >
>
> Should this patch be added to 2.6.31-rc4 to prevent the kernel panic while
> hotplug notifiers are being added to mempolicies?
afaik we don't have a final patch for this. I asked Motohiro-san about
this and he's proposing that we revert the offending change (which one
was it?) if nothing gets fixed soon - the original author is on a
lengthy vacation.
If we _do_ have a patch then can we start again? Someone send out the patch
and let's take a look at it.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
miaox@cn.fujitsu.com, mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
cl@linux-foundation.org, menage@google.com,
nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com,
penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:09:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090724160936.a3b8ad29.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907241551070.8573@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > numactl --interleave=all simply passes a nodemask with all bits set, so if
> > cpuset_current_mems_allowed includes offline nodes from node_possible_map,
> > then mpol_set_nodemask() doesn't mask them off.
> >
> > Seems like we could handle this strictly in mempolicies without worrying
> > about top_cpuset like in the following?
> > ---
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ static int mpol_new_bind(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > {
> > nodemask_t cpuset_context_nmask;
> > + nodemask_t mems_allowed;
> > int ret;
> >
> > /* if mode is MPOL_DEFAULT, pol is NULL. This is right. */
> > @@ -201,20 +202,21 @@ static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
> > return 0;
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON(!nodes);
> > + nodes_and(mems_allowed, cpuset_current_mems_allowed,
> > + node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
> > if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && nodes_empty(*nodes))
> > nodes = NULL; /* explicit local allocation */
> > else {
> > if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
> > mpol_relative_nodemask(&cpuset_context_nmask, nodes,
> > - &cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > + &mems_allowed);
> > else
> > nodes_and(cpuset_context_nmask, *nodes,
> > - cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> > + mems_allowed);
> > if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol))
> > pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
> > else
> > - pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed =
> > - cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
> > + pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = mems_allowed;
> > }
> >
> > ret = mpol_ops[pol->mode].create(pol,
> >
>
> Should this patch be added to 2.6.31-rc4 to prevent the kernel panic while
> hotplug notifiers are being added to mempolicies?
afaik we don't have a final patch for this. I asked Motohiro-san about
this and he's proposing that we revert the offending change (which one
was it?) if nothing gets fixed soon - the original author is on a
lengthy vacation.
If we _do_ have a patch then can we start again? Someone send out the patch
and let's take a look at it.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-24 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-15 9:48 [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-15 9:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-15 17:31 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2009-07-15 17:31 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2009-07-16 1:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-16 1:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-16 20:05 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-16 20:05 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-17 0:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-17 0:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-17 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-17 0:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-17 2:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-17 2:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-17 2:39 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-17 2:39 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-17 9:09 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-17 9:09 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-17 9:01 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-17 9:01 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-24 22:51 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-24 22:51 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-24 23:09 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-07-24 23:09 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-25 1:33 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 1:33 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 2:35 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 2:35 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 3:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 3:15 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 13:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-25 13:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-25 14:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-25 14:40 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-27 18:00 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-27 18:00 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-27 17:55 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-27 17:55 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-27 23:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-27 23:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 0:14 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 0:14 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 0:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 0:25 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 0:38 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 0:38 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 0:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 0:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 1:02 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 1:02 ` David Rientjes
2009-07-28 1:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 1:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 1:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 1:24 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 7:18 ` [BUGFIX] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) N_HIGH_MEMORY aware KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 7:18 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 8:52 ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-28 8:52 ` Andi Kleen
2009-07-28 10:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-28 10:04 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-29 20:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 20:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-30 0:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-30 0:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=20090724160936.a3b8ad29.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com \
/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.