Re: Sleeping BUG in khugepaged for i586

Larry Finger
2017-06-09T14:28:37Z

On 06/09/2017 01:48 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 10:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> But I guess you are primary after syncing the preemptive mode for 64 and
>> 32b systems, right? I agree that having a different model is more than
>> unfortunate because 32b gets much less testing coverage and so a risk of
>> introducing a new bug is just a matter of time. Maybe we should make
>> pte_offset_map disable preemption and currently noop pte_unmap to
>> preempt_enable. The overhead should be pretty marginal on x86_64 but not
>> all arches have per-cpu preempt count. So I am not sure we really want
>> to add this to just for the debugging purposes...
>
> I think adding that overhead for everyone would be unfortunate. It would
> be acceptable, if it was done only for the config option that enables
> the might_sleep() checks (CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP?)

As a "heads up", I will not be available for any testing from June 10 through
June 17.

Larry