[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] RE: Kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:61
On 04/25/2011 10:52 PM, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> From: MaoXiaoyun >> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:15 AM >>> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:22:29 -0700 >>> From: jeremy@xxxxxxxx >>> To: tinnycloud@xxxxxxxxxxx >>> CC: giamteckchoon@xxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >>> konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: Kernel BUG at arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:61 >>> >>> On 04/15/2011 05:23 AM, MaoXiaoyun wrote: >>>> Hiï >>>> >>>> Could the crash related to this patch ? >>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git;a=commitdiff;h=45bfd7bfc6cf32f8e60bb91b32349f0b5090eea3 >>>> >>>> Since now TLB state change to TLBSTATE_OK(mmu_context.h:40) is before >>>> cpumask_clear_cpu(line 49). >>>> Could it possible that right after execute line 40 of mmu_context.h, >>>> CPU revice IPI from other CPU to >>>> flush the mm, and when in interrupt, find the TLB state happened to be >>>> TLBSTATE_OK. Which conflicts. >>> Does reverting it help? >>> >>> J >> >> Hi Jeremy: >> >> The lastest test result shows the reverting didn't help. >> Kernel panic exactly at the same place in tlb.c. >> >> I have question about TLB state, from the stack, >> xen_do_hypervisor_callback-> xen_evtchn_do_upcall->... >> ->drop_other_mm_ref >> >> What cpu_tlbstate.state should be, could TLBSTATE_OK or TLBSTATE_LAZY >> all be possible? >> That is after a hypercall from userspace, state will be TLBSTATE_OK, and >> if from kernel space, state will be TLBSTATE_LAZE ? >> >> thanks. > it looks a bug in drop_other_mm_ref implementation, that current TLB state > should be checked > before invoking leave_mm(). There's a window between below lines of code: > > <xen_drop_mm_ref> > /* Get the "official" set of cpus referring to our pagetable. */ > if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&mask, GFP_ATOMIC)) { > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { > if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(mm)) > && per_cpu(xen_current_cr3, cpu) != __pa(mm->pgd)) > continue; > smp_call_function_single(cpu, drop_other_mm_ref, mm, > 1); > } > return; > } > > there's chance that when smp_call_function_single is invoked, actual TLB > state has been > updated in the other cpu. The upstream kernel patch you referred to earlier > just makes > this bug exposed more easily. But even without this patch, you may still > suffer such issue > which is why reverting the patch doesn't help. > > Could you try adding a check in drop_other_mm_ref? > > if (active_mm == mm && percpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) != TLBSTATE_OK) > leave_mm(smp_processor_id()); > > once the interrupted context has TLBSTATE_OK, it implicates that later it > will handle > the TLB flush and thus no need for leave_mm from interrupt handler, and > that's the > assumption of doing leave_mm. That seems reasonable. MaoXiaoyun, does it fix the bug for you? Kevin, could you submit this as a proper patch? Thanks, J _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |