Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:29:02 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zijun_hu@htc.com, cl@linux.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] mm/percpu.c: fix panic triggered by BUG_ON()
 falsely
Message-ID: <20161013232902.GD32534@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <57FCF07C.2020103@zoho.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57FCF07C.2020103@zoho.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1462
Lines: 40

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:00:28PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>
> 
> as shown by pcpu_build_alloc_info(), the number of units within a percpu
> group is educed by rounding up the number of CPUs within the group to
> @upa boundary, therefore, the number of CPUs isn't equal to the units's
> if it isn't aligned to @upa normally. however, pcpu_page_first_chunk()
> uses BUG_ON() to assert one number is equal the other roughly, so a panic
> is maybe triggered by the BUG_ON() falsely.
> 
> in order to fix this issue, the number of CPUs is rounded up then compared
> with units's, the BUG_ON() is replaced by warning and returning error code
> as well to keep system alive as much as possible.

I really can't decode what the actual issue is here.  Can you please
give an example of a concrete case?

> @@ -2113,21 +2120,22 @@ int __init pcpu_page_first_chunk(size_t reserved_size,
>  
>  	/* allocate pages */
>  	j = 0;
> -	for (unit = 0; unit < num_possible_cpus(); unit++)
> +	for (unit = 0; unit < num_possible_cpus(); unit++) {
> +		unsigned int cpu = ai->groups[0].cpu_map[unit];
>  		for (i = 0; i < unit_pages; i++) {
> -			unsigned int cpu = ai->groups[0].cpu_map[unit];
>  			void *ptr;
>  
>  			ptr = alloc_fn(cpu, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
>  			if (!ptr) {
>  				pr_warn("failed to allocate %s page for cpu%u\n",
> -					psize_str, cpu);
> +						psize_str, cpu);

And stop making gratuitous changes?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun