From: Greg Ungerer <gerg@snapgear.com>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: system lockup with 2.6.29 on Cavium/Octeon
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:19:00 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A15FD84.8050505@snapgear.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090521.235020.173372074.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Hi Atsushi,
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 15:26:04 +0100, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> wrote:
>>> Now the vmalloc area starts at 0xc000000000000000 and the kernel code
>>> and data is all at 0xffffffff80000000 and above. I don't know if the
>>> start and end are reasonable values, but I can see some logic as to
>>> where they come from. The code path that leads to this is via
>>> __vunmap() and __purge_vmap_area_lazy(). So it is not too difficult
>>> to see how we end up with values like this.
>> Either start or end address is sensible but not the combination - both
>> addresses should be in the same segment. Start is in XKSEG, end in CKSEG2
>> and in between there are vast wastelands of unused address space exabytes
>> in size.
>>
>>> But the size calculation above with these types of values will result
>>> in still a large number. Larger than the 32bit "int" that is "size".
>>> I see large negative values fall out as size, and so the following
>>> tlbsize check becomes true, and the code spins inside the loop inside
>>> that if statement for a _very_ long time trying to flush tlb entries.
>>>
>>> This is of course easily fixed, by making that size "unsigned long".
>>> The patch below trivially does this.
>>>
>>> But is this analysis correct?
>> Yes - but I think we have two issues here. The one is the calculation
>> overflowing int for the arguments you're seeing. The other being that
>> the arguments simply are looking wrong.
>
> The wrong combination comes from lazy vunmapping which was introduced
> in 2.6.28 cycle. Maybe we can add new API (non-lazy version of
> vfree()) to vmalloc.c to implement module_free(), but I suppose
> fallbacking to local_flush_tlb_all() in local_flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> is enough().
Is there any performance impact on falling back to that?
The flushing due to lazy vunmapping didn't seem to happen
often in the tests I was running.
Regards
Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer -- Principal Engineer EMAIL: gerg@snapgear.com
SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-22 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-20 6:12 system lockup with 2.6.29 on Cavium/Octeon Greg Ungerer
2009-05-20 14:26 ` Ralf Baechle
2009-05-21 5:29 ` Greg Ungerer
2009-05-21 6:28 ` Ralf Baechle
2009-05-21 14:50 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2009-05-22 1:19 ` Greg Ungerer [this message]
2009-05-22 9:23 ` Ralf Baechle
2009-05-22 11:53 ` Atsushi Nemoto
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=4A15FD84.8050505@snapgear.com \
--to=gerg@snapgear.com \
--cc=anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox