lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mm/percpu.c: use smarter memory allocation for struct pcpu_alloc_info (crisv32 hang)
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> On 11/19/2017 08:08 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/19/2017 12:36 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 06:29:49PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -2295,6 +2295,7 @@ void __init setup_per_cpu_areas(void)
> > > > > > if (pcpu_setup_first_chunk(ai, fc) < 0)
> > > > > > panic("Failed to initialize percpu areas.");
> > > > > > + pcpu_free_alloc_info(ai);
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the culprit. Everything works fine if I remove this line.
> > > >
> > > > Without this line, the memory at the ai pointer is leaked. Maybe this is
> > > > modifying the memory allocation pattern and that triggers a bug later on
> > > > in your case.
> > > >
> > > > At that point the console driver is not yet initialized and any error
> > > > message won't be printed. You should enable the early console mechanism
> > > > in your kernel (see arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/debugport.c) and see what
> > > > that might tell you.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The problem is that BUG() on crisv32 does not yield useful output.
> > > Anyway, here is the culprit.
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/bootmem.c b/mm/bootmem.c
> > > index 6aef64254203..2bcc8901450c 100644
> > > --- a/mm/bootmem.c
> > > +++ b/mm/bootmem.c
> > > @@ -382,7 +382,8 @@ static int __init mark_bootmem(unsigned long start,
> > > unsigned long end,
> > > return 0;
> > > pos = bdata->node_low_pfn;
> > > }
> > > - BUG();
> > > + WARN(1, "mark_bootmem(): memory range 0x%lx-0x%lx not found\n",
> > > start,
> > > end);
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> > > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> > > index 79e3549cab0f..c75622d844f1 100644
> > > --- a/mm/percpu.c
> > > +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> > > @@ -1881,6 +1881,7 @@ struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init
> > > pcpu_alloc_alloc_info(int nr_groups,
> > > */
> > > void __init pcpu_free_alloc_info(struct pcpu_alloc_info *ai)
> > > {
> > > + printk("pcpu_free_alloc_info(%p (0x%lx))\n", ai, __pa(ai));
> > > memblock_free_early(__pa(ai), ai->__ai_size);
> >
> > The problem here is that there is two possibilities for
> > memblock_free_early(). From include/linux/bootmem.h:
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK) && defined(CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM)
> >
> > static inline void __init memblock_free_early(
> > phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > {
> > __memblock_free_early(base, size);
> > }
> >
> > #else
> >
> > static inline void __init memblock_free_early(
> > phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size)
> > {
> > free_bootmem(base, size);
> > }
> >
> > #endif
> >
> > It looks like most architectures use the memblock variant, including all
> > the ones I have access to.
> >
> > > results in:
> > >
> > > pcpu_free_alloc_info(c0534000 (0x40534000))
> > > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/bootmem.c:385 mark_bootmem+0x9a/0xaa
> > > mark_bootmem(): memory range 0x2029a-0x2029b not found
> >
> > Well... PFN_UP(0x40534000) should give 0x40534. How you might end up
> > with 0x2029a in mark_bootmem(), let alone not exit on the first "if (max
> > == end) return 0;" within the loop is rather weird.
> >
> pcpu_free_alloc_info: ai=c0536000, __pa(ai)=0x40536000,
> PFN_UP(__pa(ai))=0x2029b, PFN_UP(ai)=0x6029b
>
> bootmem range is 0x60000..0x61000. It doesn't get to "if (max == end)"
> because "pos (=0x2029b) < bdata->node_min_pfn (=0x60000)".

OK. the 0x2029b is the result of PAGE_SIZE being 8192 in your case.
However the bootmem allocator deals with physical addresses not virtual
ones. So it shouldn't give you a 0x60000..0x61000 range.

Would be interesting to see what result you get on line 860 of
mm/bootmem.c.


Nicolas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 19:18    [W:0.088 / U:10.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site