linux-kernel - Re: Huge memory takes too long time to initialize on 4TB ?

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]

Message-ID: <CABawtvN=acTmetJpOcYe7rYSTWGoTPNT=Uc_wV_Y+UekvTRPhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 May 2012 10:28:09 +0800
From:	ethan zhao <ethan.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Huge memory takes too long time to initialize on 4TB ?

Andrea,
  The system didn't crash and died forever, just lockup on all cpus
too long time more than 21s and get to normal status.
there is race condition between stop_machine_cpu_stop() when switch to
TSC and the setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
about irq. My guess right ?

Thanks,
Ethan


On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:38:04PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012, ethan zhao wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, aarcange
>> >
>> >    When I boot kernel 2.6.39-100.6.1.el6uek.x86_64(actually 3.0.26)on
>> > a 4TB memory machine, got following call trace,
>> > That shows huge memory take too long time to initialize ? any help ?,
>> > I compared the huge_memory.c code between 3.0.26 and the current
>> > 3.2.x, no change.
>> >
>>
>> This has nothing to do with mm/huge_memory.c, which is transparent
>> hugepages code, it's the lengthy iteration done for a very large
>> ZONE_NORMAL in setup_zone_migrate_reserve().
>>
>> This should be fixed by 938929f14cb5 ("mm: reduce the amount of work done
>> when updating min_free_kbytes") and was merged in 3.3.  Let us know if
>> there's still a problem after upgrading to either that or 3.4
>
> I thought that was only a performance optimization, so if the oops is
> generated by a timeout it can fix it, so good idea to try it. But a
> timeout watchdog triggering exactly in spin_unlock sounds a bit
> unlikely occurence, so I assumed too long time here meant "wait forever
> because it crashed".
> --
> 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/
--
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/