[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120112153712.GL4118@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:37:12 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...ell.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Gong Chen <gong.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: page allocator: Do not drain per-cpu lists via
IPI from page allocator context
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 04:18:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 10:11 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > At least one bug report has
> > been seen on ppc64 against a 3.0 era kernel that looked like a bug
> > receiving interrupts on a CPU being offlined.
>
> Got details on that Mel? The preempt_disable() in on_each_cpu() should
> serialize against the stop_machine() crap in unplug.
I might have added 2 and 2 together and got 5.
The stack trace clearly was while sending IPIs in on_each_cpu() and
always when under memory pressure and stuck in direct reclaim. This was
on !PREEMPT kernels where preempt_disable() is a no-op. That is why I
thought get_online_cpu() would be necessary.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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