Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934036AbcLMQ6f (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:58:35 -0500 Received: from mail-vk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.213.41]:35850 "EHLO mail-vk0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932595AbcLMQ54 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:57:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161213101254.GC10498@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <87lgvlzp34.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <1481553981-3856-1-git-send-email-aryabinin@virtuozzo.com> <20161213101254.GC10498@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:57:34 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm-add-vfree_atomic-fix To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrey Ryabinin , Andrew Morton , Huang Ying , Stephen Rothwell , Christoph Hellwig , Joel Fernandes , Jisheng Zhang , Chris Wilson , John Dias , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , LKP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3323 Lines: 83 On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:12 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [CC Andy] > > I've noticed the same > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161209142820.GA4334@dhcp22.suse.cz > and also concluded same as you > > On Mon 12-12-16 17:46:21, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >> DEBUG_PREEMPT complains about using this_cpu_ptr() in preemptible: >> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: iperf-300s-cs-l/277 >> caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19 >> CPU: 1 PID: 277 Comm: iperf-300s-cs-l Not tainted 4.9.0-rc8-00140-gcc639db #2 >> ffffc900003f3cf0 ffffffff8123ae6f 0000000000000001 ffffffff818181da >> ffffc900003f3d20 ffffffff81252f41 0000000000012de0 00000000fffffdff >> ffff880009328f40 ffff88000592c400 ffffc900003f3d30 ffffffff81252f6a >> Call Trace: >> [] dump_stack+0x9a/0xd0 >> [] check_preemption_disabled+0xdd/0xef >> [] debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19 >> [] __vfree_deferred+0x16/0x4c >> [] vfree_atomic+0x22/0x24 >> [] free_thread_stack+0xc2/0x106 >> [] put_task_stack+0x4c/0x62 >> [] copy_process+0x7e0/0x16e8 >> [] _do_fork+0xbb/0x2d3 >> [] ? __do_page_fault+0x2e1/0x384 >> [] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x12/0x24 >> [] SyS_clone+0x19/0x1b >> [] do_syscall_64+0x143/0x173 >> [] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25 >> >> Use raw_cpu_ptr() instead of this_cpu_ptr() to hide this warning. >> It's fine because llist_add() implementation is lock-less, so it works even >> if we adding to the list of some other cpu. schedule_work() is also preempt-safe. >> >> Reported-by: kernel test robot >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko But not quite acked by me. What happened to the vfree code that causes vfree_deferred to be called in a preemptable context? That sounds like a bug. (This code doesn't exist in Linus' tree. What tree does this apply to.) > >> --- >> mm/vmalloc.c | 9 ++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c >> index 43f0608..d8813963 100644 >> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c >> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c >> @@ -1498,7 +1498,14 @@ static void __vunmap(const void *addr, int deallocate_pages) >> >> static inline void __vfree_deferred(const void *addr) >> { >> - struct vfree_deferred *p = this_cpu_ptr(&vfree_deferred); >> + /* >> + * Use raw_cpu_ptr() because this can be called from preemptible >> + * context. Preemption is absolutely fine here, because llist_add() >> + * implementation is lockless, so it works even if we adding to list >> + * of the other cpu. >> + * schedule_work() should be fine with this too. >> + */ >> + struct vfree_deferred *p = raw_cpu_ptr(&vfree_deferred); >> >> if (llist_add((struct llist_node *)addr, &p->list)) >> schedule_work(&p->wq); >> -- >> 2.7.3 > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- Andy Lutomirski AMA Capital Management, LLC