[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6844644e0710241339i4d9ee450s98f9941f43a8cd6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:39:57 -0400
From: "Doug Reiland" <dreiland@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dreiland@...il.com
Subject: 2.6.xxx race condition in x86_64's global_flush_tlb???
I have seen some hangs in 2.6-x86_64 in flush_kernel_map(). The tests
cause alot of ioremap/iounmap to occur concurrently across many
processor threads.
Looking at the hung processor hangs, they are looping in
flush_kernel_map() and the list they get from the smp_call_function()
appears to be corrupt. In fact, I see deferred_pages as an entry and
that isn't supposed to happen.
I am questioning the locking in global_flush_tlb() listed below. The
down_read/up_read protection doesn't seen safe. If several threads are
rushing thru here, deferred_pages could be getting changed as they
look at it. I don't think there any protection when
list_replace_init() calls INIT_LIST_HEAD().
I changed the down_read()/up_read() around list_replace_init() to
down_write()/up_write() and my test runs fine.
void global_flush_tlb(void)
{
struct page *pg, *next;
struct list_head l;
down_read(&init_mm.mmap_sem); // XXX should be down_write()???
list_replace_init(&deferred_pages, &l);
up_read(&init_mm.mmap_sem); // XXX should be up_write()????
flush_map(&l);
list_for_each_entry_safe(pg, next, &l, lru) {
ClearPagePrivate(pg);
__free_page(pg);
}
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists