[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUh_6tWdTyDwZ4U1BDSnN1khbGDGBvCTO3MVcdU-X23QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:55:09 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 03:08:03PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > So, for now, all we need is adding nmi check in percpu accessors,
>> > right?
>> >
>>
>> What's the issue with nmi? Page faults are supposed to nest correctly
>> inside nmi, right?
>
> Thought they couldn't. Looking at the trace that Frederic linked, it
> looks like straight-out tracing function recursion due to an
> unexpected fault while holding a lock. I don't think this can be
> annotated from percpu accessor side. There's nothing special about
> the context. :(
That doesn't appear to have anything to with nmi though, right?
Wouldn't this issue be fixed by moving the vmalloc_fault check into
do_page_fault before exception_enter?
--Andy
--
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