From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com,
aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, tglx <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] increase PREEMPT_BITS to 12 to avoid overflow when starting KVM
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:56:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1269971802.5258.524.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100330133634.2f1bf3d6@cuia.bos.redhat.com>
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 13:36 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Increase the PREEMPT_BITS to 12, to deal with a larger number
> of locks that can be taken in mm_take_all_locks or other places
> where many instances of the same type of lock can be taken.
>
> The overflow of PREEMPT_BITS should be harmless, since it simply
> increments the counter into the SOFTIRQ_BITS, and the counter
> will be decremented again later.
>
> However, the overflow does lead to backtraces with CONFIG_PREEMPT_DEBUG
> enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
>
> ---
> Kent, does this patch fix the issue you saw?
>
> Peter, I know you do not like this approach. However, I could not
> think of a way around mm_take_all_locks. We need to take those locks
> and want to track that fact for lock debugging...
Does this even boot? It tramples all over PREEMPT_ACTIVE for x86.
Also, you'll need to convince mingo and tglx too.. taking that many
spinlocks is utter suckage..
> diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> index d5b3876..e74108f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@
> * We put the hardirq and softirq counter into the preemption
> * counter. The bitmask has the following meaning:
> *
> - * - bits 0-7 are the preemption count (max preemption depth: 256)
> - * - bits 8-15 are the softirq count (max # of softirqs: 256)
> + * - bits 0-12 are the preemption count (max preemption depth: 4096)
> + * - bits 13-19 are the softirq count (max # of softirqs: 256)
> *
> * The hardirq count can in theory reach the same as NR_IRQS.
> * In reality, the number of nested IRQS is limited to the stack
> @@ -24,16 +24,16 @@
> * hardirq nesting. An arch may choose to give less than 10 bits.
> * m68k expects it to be 8.
> *
> - * - bits 16-25 are the hardirq count (max # of nested hardirqs: 1024)
> - * - bit 26 is the NMI_MASK
> - * - bit 28 is the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag
> + * - bits 26-29 are the hardirq count (max # of nested hardirqs: 1024)
> + * - bit 30 is the NMI_MASK
> + * - bit 31 is the PREEMPT_ACTIVE flag
> *
> - * PREEMPT_MASK: 0x000000ff
> - * SOFTIRQ_MASK: 0x0000ff00
> - * HARDIRQ_MASK: 0x03ff0000
> - * NMI_MASK: 0x04000000
> + * PREEMPT_MASK: 0x00000fff
> + * SOFTIRQ_MASK: 0x000ff000
> + * HARDIRQ_MASK: 0x3ff00000
> + * NMI_MASK: 0x40000000
> */
> -#define PREEMPT_BITS 8
> +#define PREEMPT_BITS 12
> #define SOFTIRQ_BITS 8
> #define NMI_BITS 1
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-30 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-30 17:36 [PATCH] increase PREEMPT_BITS to 12 to avoid overflow when starting KVM Rik van Riel
2010-03-30 17:56 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-03-30 18:05 ` Rik van Riel
2010-03-30 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 9:40 ` [COUNTERPATCH] mm: avoid overflowing preempt_count() in mmu_take_all_locks() Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 11:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-04-01 11:13 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 11:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 11:19 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 15:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 15:39 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 15:54 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 16:02 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 16:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 11:17 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 11:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 11:47 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 15:42 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 15:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 16:07 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 16:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 16:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 15:51 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 15:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 16:06 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 16:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 17:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 16:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 16:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-01 16:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 16:18 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 16:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-01 17:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 14:16 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-01 15:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-04-01 15:37 ` Avi Kivity
2010-04-01 11:09 ` Avi Kivity
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=1269971802.5258.524.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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