On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>> I hit the overlap issue, but it is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>>
>>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>>
>> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
> Hi wei
>
>cat /proc/vmallocinfo
>0xf1580000-0xf1600000 524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
>0xf1638000-0xf163a000 8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
>0xf528e000-0xf5292000 16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
>0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap
These two ranges overlap.
This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't
see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range.
Which version of your kernel?
Hard to reproduce means just see once?
>0xfe001000-0xfe002000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
>0xfe200000-0xfe201000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
>0xff100000-0xff101000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap
>
>I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
>and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
>therefore, it is no idea for me.
>
>Thanks
>zhongjinag
>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
On 2017/6/2 9:45, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>> On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>>> I hit the overlap issue, but it is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>>>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>>>
>>>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>>>
>>> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
>> Hi wei
>>
>> cat /proc/vmallocinfo
>> 0xf1580000-0xf1600000 524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
>> 0xf1638000-0xf163a000 8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
>> 0xf528e000-0xf5292000 16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
>> 0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap
> These two ranges overlap.
>
> This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't
> see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range.
>
> Which version of your kernel?
> Hard to reproduce means just see once?
yes, just once. I have also no see any problem from the code. The kernel version is linux 4.1.
but That indeed exist.
Thanks
zhongjiang
>> 0xfe001000-0xfe002000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
>> 0xfe200000-0xfe201000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
>> 0xff100000-0xff101000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap
>>
>> I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
>> and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
>> therefore, it is no idea for me.
>>
>> Thanks
>> zhongjinag
>>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:26:06AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>On 2017/6/2 9:45, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>> On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>>>> I hit the overlap issue, but it is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation
>>>>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens?
>>> Hi wei
>>>
>>> cat /proc/vmallocinfo
>>> 0xf1580000-0xf1600000 524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap
>>> 0xf1638000-0xf163a000 8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap
>>> 0xf528e000-0xf5292000 16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc
>>> 0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap
>> These two ranges overlap.
>>
>> This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't
>> see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range.
>>
>> Which version of your kernel?
>> Hard to reproduce means just see once?
> yes, just once. I have also no see any problem from the code. The kernel version is linux 4.1.
> but That indeed exist.
>
This is really interesting. While without reproducing the behavior, it is
really costly to debug in the code.
I took a look into my own /proc/vmallocinfo, there are around hundred entries.
Currently, I don't have a clue to dive into the issue.
> Thanks
>zhongjiang
>>> 0xfe001000-0xfe002000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap
>>> 0xfe200000-0xfe201000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap
>>> 0xff100000-0xff101000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap
>>>
>>> I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident.
>>> and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation.
>>> therefore, it is no idea for me.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> zhongjinag
>>>
>
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me