[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210713215447.GA3741@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 22:54:47 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [mm/vmalloc] 5c1f4e690e:
BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_mm/page_alloc.c
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:19:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:06 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > [ 131.014885] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/page_alloc.c:4992
>
> Strange. The call chain doesn't actually seem to be anything off: it's
> writev -> sock_write_iter -> sock_sendmsg -> netlink_sendmsg ->
> vmalloc.
>
> All good to sleep as far as I can tell. The warning itself seems to be just
>
> might_sleep_if(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM);
>
> in prepare_alloc_pages().
>
> I don't see what's wrong with that commit, but it does seem to be very
> consistent, in that the parent doesn't have it:
>
It's almost certainly going to be fixed by
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210713152100.10381-2-mgorman@techsingularity.net
whenever it hits your tree as part of this series
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210713152100.10381-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net/.
It should make its way through Andrew's tree before RC2 but if he is busy
I'll create a git pull request.
> which means that the might_sleep_if() happens _after_
> __alloc_pages_bulk() has disabled interrupts. That would explain it,
> but the stack_depot_save() thing actually makes that call chain really
> hard to read because it duplicates the addresses on the stack.
>
> I don't see the nesting there, but that's what it kind of smells like to me.
>
> Anybody?
>
The problem is that PAGE_OWNER can recurse allocate from bulk allocation
context to store the caller stack. When I wrote the patch, I missed that
prep_new_page can allocate if PAGE_OWNER is active. The most relevant
part of the trace is
[ 131.092667] stack_depot_save+0x390/0x4c0
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists