Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:05:57 -0700 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: Sleeping BUG in khugepaged for i586 |
| |
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:48:31PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote: > > I agree it's probably going to bisect to 338a16ba15495 since it's the > > cond_resched() at the line number reported, but I think there must be > > something else going on. I think the list of locks held by khugepaged is > > correct because it matches with the implementation. The preempt_count(), > > as suggested by Andrew, does not. If this is reproducible, I'd like to > > know what preempt_count() is. > > collapse_huge_page > pte_offset_map > kmap_atomic > kmap_atomic_prot > preempt_disable > __collapse_huge_page_copy > pte_unmap > kunmap_atomic > __kunmap_atomic > preempt_enable > > I suspect, so cond_resched seems indeed inappropriate on 32b systems.
Then why doesn't it trigger on 64-bit systems too?
#ifndef ARCH_HAS_KMAP ... static inline void *kmap_atomic(struct page *page) { preempt_disable(); pagefault_disable(); return page_address(page); } #define kmap_atomic_prot(page, prot) kmap_atomic(page)
... oh, wait, I see. Because pte_offset_map() doesn't call kmap_atomic() on 64-bit. Indeed, it doesn't necessarily call kmap_atomic() on 32-bit either; only with CONFIG_HIGHPTE enabled. How much of a performance penalty would it be to call kmap_atomic() unconditionally on 64 bit to make sure that this kind of problem doesn't show on 32-bit systems only?
| |