Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:42:42PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I know, but I really was not aware of the fact that dynamically
> allocated percpu stuff is vmalloc based and therefor exposed to the
> same issues.
> 
> The normal vmalloc space simply does not have the problems which are
> generated by percpu allocations which have no documented access
> restrictions.
>
> You created a special case and that special case is clever but not
> very well thought out considering the use cases of percpu variables
> and the completely undocumented limitations you introduced silently.
> 
> Just admit it and dont try to educate me about trivial vmalloc
> properties.

Why are you always so overly dramatic?  How is this productive?  Sure,
this could have been better but I missed it at the beginning and this
is the first time I hear about this issue.  Shits happen and we fix
them.

> > 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.
> 
> You obviously did not even take the time to carefully read what I
> wrote:
> 
>    "Now after that increment the allocation side needs to wait for a
>     scheduling cycle on all cpus (we have mechanisms for that)"
> 
> That's exactly stating what you claim to be 'not enough'. 

Missed that.  Sorry.

> > For the time being, we can make percpu accessors complain when
> > called from nmi handlers so that the problematic ones can be easily
> > identified.
> 
> You should have done that in the very first place instead of letting
> other people run into issues which you should have thought of from the
> very beginning.

Sure, it would have been better if I noticed that from the get-go, but
I couldn't think of the NMI case that time and neither did anybody who
reviewed the code.  It'd be awesome if we could have avoided it but it
didn't go that way, so let's fix it.  Can we please stay technical?

So, for now, all we need is adding nmi check in percpu accessors,
right?

-- 
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/