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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox