linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: page allocator: Do not drain per-cpu lists via IPI from page allocator context

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:52:31 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
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, 2012-01-12 at 15:37 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 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.

For non-preempt the required scheduling of stop_machine() will have to
wait even longer. Still there might be something funny, some of the
hotplug notifiers are ran before the stop_machine thing does its thing
so there might be some fun interaction.
--
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/