On 06/23/2017 08:25 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 23-06-17 15:13:45, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 06/23/2017 02:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 08-06-17 16:48:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote:
I suspect, so cond_resched seems indeed inappropriate on 32b s
On Fri 23-06-17 15:13:45, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 06/23/2017 02:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 08-06-17 16:48:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect, so cond_resched seems indeed inappropriate on 32b systems.
> >
> > The code sti
On 06/23/2017 02:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 08-06-17 16:48:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote:
>>
>> I suspect, so cond_resched seems indeed inappropriate on 32b systems.
>
> The code still seems to be in the mmotm tree.
Even mainline at this point
On Thu 08-06-17 16:48:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > > >> Hmm I'd expect such spin lock to be reported together with mmap_sem in
> > > >> the debugging "locks held" message?
> > > >
> > > > My bisect
On Wed 14-06-17 18:12:06, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > collapse_huge_page
> > pte_offset_map
> > kmap_atomic
> > kmap_atomic_prot
> > preempt_disable
> > __collapse_huge_page_copy
> > pte_unmap
> > kunmap_atomic
> > __kunma
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 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 seem
On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > These are not soft lockups, these are need_resched warnings. We monitor
> > how long need_resched has been set and when a thread takes an excessive
> > amount of time to reschedule after it has been set. A loop of 512 pages
> > with ptl contention
On Sun 11-06-17 16:28:11, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > > I would just pull the cond_resched out of __collapse_huge_page_copy
> > > > right after pte_unmap. But I am not really sure why this cond_resched is
> > > > really needed because the changelog of t
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I would just pull the cond_resched out of __collapse_huge_page_copy
> > > right after pte_unmap. But I am not really sure why this cond_resched is
> > > really needed because the changelog of the patch which adds is is quite
> > > terse on details.
>
On Fri 09-06-17 15:38:44, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > I would just pull the cond_resched out of __collapse_huge_page_copy
> > right after pte_unmap. But I am not really sure why this cond_resched is
> > really needed because the changelog of the patch whic
On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I would just pull the cond_resched out of __collapse_huge_page_copy
> right after pte_unmap. But I am not really sure why this cond_resched is
> really needed because the changelog of the patch which adds is is quite
> terse on details.
I'm not sure what
On 06/09/2017 01:48 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 06/08/2017 10:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
But I guess you are primary after syncing the preemptive mode for 64 and
32b systems, right? I agree that having a different model is more than
unfortunate because 32b gets much less testing coverage and s
On Fri 09-06-17 08:48:58, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 10:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > But I guess you are primary after syncing the preemptive mode for 64 and
> > 32b systems, right? I agree that having a different model is more than
> > unfortunate because 32b gets much less testing c
On 06/08/2017 10:30 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> But I guess you are primary after syncing the preemptive mode for 64 and
> 32b systems, right? I agree that having a different model is more than
> unfortunate because 32b gets much less testing coverage and so a risk of
> introducing a new bug is just
On Thu 08-06-17 22:18:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 08-06-17 10:05:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 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
> >
On Thu 08-06-17 10:05:57, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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 th
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
On 06/07/2017 03:56 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Hmm I'd expect such spin lock to be reported together with mmap_sem in
the debugging "locks held" message?
My bisection of the problem is about half done. My latest good version is commit
7b8cd33 and the
On Wed 07-06-17 13:56:01, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> > >> Hmm I'd expect such spin lock to be reported together with mmap_sem in
> > >> the debugging "locks held" message?
> > >
> > > My bisection of the problem is about half done. My latest good versio
On Wed, 7 Jun 2017, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> Hmm I'd expect such spin lock to be reported together with mmap_sem in
> >> the debugging "locks held" message?
> >
> > My bisection of the problem is about half done. My latest good version is
> > commit
> > 7b8cd33 and the latest bad one is 2ea6
On 06/06/2017 05:01 PM, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 06/06/2017 09:02 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 06/05/2017 11:44 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:24:26 -0500 Larry Finger
>>> wrote:
>>>
I recently turned on locking diagnostics for a Dell Latitude D600 laptop,
which
On 06/06/2017 09:02 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 06/05/2017 11:44 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:24:26 -0500 Larry Finger
wrote:
I recently turned on locking diagnostics for a Dell Latitude D600 laptop, which
requires a 32-bit kernel. In the log I found the following:
BUG:
On 06/05/2017 11:44 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:24:26 -0500 Larry Finger
> wrote:
>
>> I recently turned on locking diagnostics for a Dell Latitude D600 laptop,
>> which
>> requires a 32-bit kernel. In the log I found the following:
>>
>> BUG: sleeping function called from
On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:24:26 -0500 Larry Finger
wrote:
> I recently turned on locking diagnostics for a Dell Latitude D600 laptop,
> which
> requires a 32-bit kernel. In the log I found the following:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/khugepaged.c:655
> in_atomic():
I recently turned on locking diagnostics for a Dell Latitude D600 laptop, which
requires a 32-bit kernel. In the log I found the following:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/khugepaged.c:655
in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 20, name: khugepaged
1 lock held by khuge
25 matches
Mail list logo
