From: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mandeep.baines@gmail.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>,
x86@kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mm: only wait for flushes from online cpus
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:09:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120718220909.GF3465@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5007252E.4070608@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Srivatsa S. Bhat (srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 03:33 AM, mandeep.baines@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
> >
> > A cpu in the mm_cpumask could go offline before we send the
> > invalidate IPI causing us to wait forever.
> >
> > Bug Trace:
> >
> > <4>[10222.234548] WARNING: at ../../arch/x86/kernel/apic/ipi.c:113 default_send_IPI_mask_logical+0x58/0x73()
> > <5>[10222.234633] Pid: 23605, comm: lmt-udev Tainted: G C 3.2.7 #1
> > <5>[10222.234639] Call Trace:
> > <5>[10222.234651] [<8102e666>] warn_slowpath_common+0x68/0x7d
> > <5>[10222.234661] [<81016c36>] ? default_send_IPI_mask_logical+0x58/0x73
> > <5>[10222.234670] [<8102e68f>] warn_slowpath_null+0x14/0x18
> > <5>[10222.234678] [<81016c36>] default_send_IPI_mask_logical+0x58/0x73
> > <5>[10222.234687] [<8101eec2>] flush_tlb_others_ipi+0x86/0xba
> > <5>[10222.234696] [<8101f0bb>] flush_tlb_mm+0x5e/0x62
> > <5>[10222.234703] [<8101e36c>] pud_populate+0x2c/0x31
> > <5>[10222.234711] [<8101e409>] pgd_alloc+0x98/0xc7
> > <5>[10222.234719] [<8102c881>] mm_init.isra.38+0xcc/0xf3
> > <5>[10222.234727] [<8102cbc2>] dup_mm+0x68/0x34e
> > <5>[10222.234736] [<8139bbae>] ? _cond_resched+0xd/0x21
> > <5>[10222.234745] [<810a5b7c>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x26/0xe2
> > <5>[10222.234753] [<8102d421>] ? copy_process+0x556/0xda6
> > <5>[10222.234761] [<8102d641>] copy_process+0x776/0xda6
> > <5>[10222.234770] [<8102dd5e>] do_fork+0xcb/0x1d4
> > <5>[10222.234778] [<810a8c96>] ? do_sync_write+0xd3/0xd3
> > <5>[10222.234786] [<810a94ab>] ? vfs_read+0x95/0xa2
> > <5>[10222.234795] [<81008850>] sys_clone+0x20/0x25
> > <5>[10222.234804] [<8139d8c5>] ptregs_clone+0x15/0x30
> > <5>[10222.234812] [<8139d7f7>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
> > <4>[10222.234818] ---[ end trace 31e095600f50fd48 ]---
> > <3>[10234.880183] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [lmt-udev:23605]
> >
> > Addresses http://crosbug.com/31737
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>
> > Cc: Olof Johansson <olofj@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > index 5e57e11..010090d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> > @@ -194,8 +194,13 @@ static void flush_tlb_others_ipi(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> > apic->send_IPI_mask(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask),
> > INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START + sender);
> >
>
> This function is always called with preempt_disabled() right?
> In that case, _while_ this function is running, a CPU cannot go offline
> because of stop_machine(). (I understand that it might go offline in between
> calculating that cpumask and calling preempt_disable() - which is the race
> you are trying to handle).
>
Ah. Good point. A cpu cannot be remove from the cpu_online_mask while
preemption is disabled because stop_machine() can't run until
preemption is enabled.
./kernel/cpu.c: err = __stop_machine(take_cpu_down, &tcd_param, cpumask_of(cpu));
> So, why not take the offline cpus out of the way even before sending that IPI?
> That way, we need not modify the while loop below.
>
> > - while (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask)))
> > + while (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask))) {
> > + /* Only wait for online cpus */
> > + cpumask_and(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask),
> > + to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask),
> > + cpu_online_mask);
> > cpu_relax();
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > f->flush_mm = NULL;
> >
>
> That is, how about something like this:
>
Acked-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Do you mind re-sending you're patch with a proper sign-off.
Thanks and regards,
Mandeep
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> index 5e57e11..9d387a9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -186,7 +186,11 @@ static void flush_tlb_others_ipi(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
>
> f->flush_mm = mm;
> f->flush_va = va;
> - if (cpumask_andnot(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask), cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()))) {
> +
> + cpumask_and(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask), cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask));
> +
> + if (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask))) {
> /*
> * We have to send the IPI only to
> * CPUs affected.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
> IBM Linux Technology Center
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-18 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-20 22:03 [PATCH] x86, mm: only wait for flushes from online cpus mandeep.baines
2012-07-18 21:05 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-07-18 22:09 ` Mandeep Singh Baines [this message]
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=20120718220909.GF3465@google.com \
--to=msb@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mandeep.baines@gmail.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=msb@chromium.org \
--cc=olofj@chromium.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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.