[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Top kernel oopses/warnings for the week of May 16th 2008
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 07:57:26AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>> The reason I touched that code, is that a change introduced during
>>> 2.6.25-rc initialized the isa dma pool even if not necessary and that
>>> broke the reserved-ram patch that requires no __GFP_DMA
>>> allocations. There was no crash in 2.6.24 based kernels, the
>>> regression started in 2.6.25-rc.
>> I'd not really call "breaks external patch" a regression ;)
> The external patch only allowed me to notice the regression when
> nobody else noticed it. For mainline the regression was to put ram
> into the bounce buffer pool even if no dma could ever require the
> bounce buffering. There's no point to initialize the pool when total
> ram < highest dma address. That is the regression. My patch turned the
> regression from a waste of ram, to a kernel crash at boot. That's the
> only relation between the reserved-ram patch this bug.
> I assume Robert has a similar issue with some debugging code checking
> for GFP_KERNEL allocations inside atomic context or similar, I assume
> his driver has a bug and calls that function in the wrong context. But
> if this didn't happen in 2.4.24, it means such bug has nothing to do
> with the bug in blk-settings.c. It's just that such a bug or the
> reserved-ram patches are required to notice the regression in
> blk-settings.c.

Well, it's not really documented what the locking semantics are supposed
to be for blk_queue_bounce_limit. Based on the implementation, though,
it's OK to call it under spin_lock_irqsave (it only sets some variables)
unless you hit the case where dma is set to 1 and we do
init_emergency_isa_pool. That's the problem, that case should not be hit
with a DMA mask of 32-bit, but with Yang Shi's change to blk-settings.c,
now we are.

The code in that function seems rather hackish, actually. It seems like
a lot of those assumptions it's making should be in
architecture-specific code..

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-19 04:27    [W:0.038 / U:0.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site