Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

[Tejun Heo]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:58:26PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> It's completely undocumented behaviour, whether it has been that way
> for ever or not. And I agree with Fredric, that it is insane. Actuallu
> it's beyond insane, really.

This is exactly the same for any address in the vmalloc space.

..
>    So in the scheduler if the same task gets reselected you check that
>    sequence count and update the PGD if different. If a task switch
>    happens then you also need to check the sequence count and act
>    accordingly.

That isn't enough tho.  What if the percpu allocated pointer gets
passed to another CPU without task switching?  You'd at least need to
send IPIs to all CPUs so that all the active PGDs get updated
synchronously.

> What really frightens me is the potential and well hidden fuckup
> potential which lurks around the corner and the hard to debug once in
> a while fallout which might be caused by this.

Lazy vmalloc population through fault is something we accepted as
reasonable as it works fine for most of the kernel.  If the lazy
loading can be improved so that it doesn't depend on faulting, great.
For the time being, we can make percpu accessors complain when called
from nmi handlers so that the problematic ones can be easily
identified.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/