[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] x86: hold mm->page_table_lock while doing vmalloc_sync
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 12:44:02PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 02/02/2011 06:48 PM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Larry (CC'ed) found a problem with the patch in subject. When > > USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS is not defined (NR_CPUS == 2) it will deadlock in > > ptep_clear_flush_notify in rmap.c because it's sending IPIs with the > > page_table_lock already held, and the other CPUs now spins on the > > page_table_lock with irq disabled, so the IPI never runs. With > > CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y this deadlocks happens even with > > USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS defined so it become visible but it needs to be > > fixed regardless (for NR_CPUS == 2). > > What's "it" here? Do you mean vmalloc_sync_all? vmalloc_sync_one? > What's the callchain? Larry just answered to that. If something is unclear let me know. I never reproduced it, but it also can happen without THP enabled, you just need to set NR_CPUS to 2 during "make menuconfig". > > spin_lock_irqsave(pgd_lock) so I guess it's either common code, or > > it's superfluous and not another Xen special requirement. > > There's no special Xen requirement here. That was my thought too considering the other archs... > mmdrop() can be called from interrupt context, but I don't know if it > will ever drop the last reference from interrupt, so maybe you can get > away with it. Yes the issue is __mmdrop, so it'd be nice to figure if __mmdrop can also run from irq (or only mmdrop fast path which would be safe even without _irqsave). Is this a Xen only thing? Or is mmdrop called from regular linux. Considering other archs also _irqsave I assume it's common code calling mmdrop (otherwise it means they cut-and-pasted a Xen dependency). This comment doesn't really tell me much. static void pgd_dtor(pgd_t *pgd) { unsigned long flags; /* can be called from interrupt context */ if (SHARED_KERNEL_PMD) return; VM_BUG_ON(in_interrupt()); spin_lock(&pgd_lock); This comment tells the very __mmdrop can be called from irq context, not just mmdrop. But I didn't find where yet... Can you tell me? > > @@ -247,7 +248,7 @@ void vmalloc_sync_all(void) > > if (!ret) > > break; > > } > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pgd_lock, flags); > > + spin_unlock(&pgd_lock, flags); > > Urp. Did this compile? Yes it builds and it also runs fine still (I left it running since I posted the email and no problems yet, but this may not be reproducible and we really need to know who calls __mmdrop from irq context to tell). The above is under CONFIG_X86_32 and I did a 64bit build ;). I'm not reposting a version that builds for 32bit x86 too until we figure out the mmdrop thing... Thanks, Andrea _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |