[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141012.132012.254712930139255731.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:20:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mroos@...ux.ee, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: unaligned accesses in SLAB etc.
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:15:10 -0400 (EDT)
>
> I'm getting tons of the following on sparc64:
>
> [603965.383447] Kernel unaligned access at TPC[546b58] free_block+0x98/0x1a0
> [603965.396987] Kernel unaligned access at TPC[546b60] free_block+0xa0/0x1a0
> [603965.410523] Kernel unaligned access at TPC[546b58] free_block+0x98/0x1a0
The unaligned accesses are happening in the SLAB_OBJ_PFMEMALLOC code,
which assumes that all object pointers are "unsigned long" aligned:
static inline void set_obj_pfmemalloc(void **objp)
{
*objp = (void *)((unsigned long)*objp | SLAB_OBJ_PFMEMALLOC);
return;
}
etc. etc.
But that code has been there working forever. Something changed
recently such that this assumption no longer holds.
In all of the cases, the address is 4-byte aligned but not 8-byte
aligned. And they are vmalloc addresses.
Which made me suspect the percpu commit:
====================
commit bf0dea23a9c094ae869a88bb694fbe966671bf6d
Author: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Date: Thu Oct 9 15:26:27 2014 -0700
mm/slab: use percpu allocator for cpu cache
====================
And indeed, reverting this commit fixes the problem.
--
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