[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxi5mNNXFH20AwrgOVsT1HyuU1a63VYm6m+j0jSVr4dGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:40:49 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> This is why I think that the grsec kernels will crash on very large
> memory systems. They don't seem to get this right for the kernel
> stack, and a page fault trying to access the stack is a big no-no.
For something like a stack, that's trivial, you could just probe it
before the actual task switch.
So I wouldn't worry about the kernel stack itself (although I think
vmallocing it isn't likely worth it), I'd worry more about some other
random dynamic percpu allocation. Although they arguably shouldn't
happen for low-level code that cannot handle the dynamic
pgd-population. And they generally don't.
It's really tracing that tends to be a special case not because of any
particular low-level code issue, but because instrumenting itself
recursively tends to be a bad idea.
Linus
--
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