Received: by 2002:a25:1985:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 127csp3730135ybz; Mon, 4 May 2020 08:38:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIhqurY8OqkvzVwdjAPYJea0zibTX+YzFEviw7hMuXoCzRnjryuE/NvUikgaVZcwpbAkZoV X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1804:: with SMTP id v4mr16104399eje.104.1588606734033; Mon, 04 May 2020 08:38:54 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1588606734; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=t+4b/nJMjXyw+ZBqonqDe1JETv7LaBXsME+DC/6uxU5iOa8nvWrSV4BdA2sPw1x/a4 7nP3ll5X7SdNy3/WFMApcwjklp3n02KRpRCSc8WHq4j9HTZKcwnaxQKvrgDOMwWPW1Re SRNfyu5eAQgFUym1mkxyQLHARUZwoMmkRQGJicXGIKnwr5trQL1egvDxYMC9/ww4zBB6 tNOmKU2rhgv7Y3csVAAy/Uta0zvUOOe8nT7I1QF5l6R59l3jU1krCUY2KYxzho2fcfZs cBDMxtyorLwqqxjP7MFPcmixSghKEaKpcQng1PIH0FPwrNUTOCJnGUSzFve92QeEVJHX MYuA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=fLubumYxuzs66AMieyzUdiJI7DxQ88WW7l/Ci0qfOAs=; b=TSENK6aFyAeqrrUMSM/1U1LDTzrGIbjoU2FDcUWQPLMAbMS7Q2FSoHdSkXrMSx8CQC BZdnNbRMK5qBrVC4d7ZIpqarIQ6bfuJ17diu1YvKE3jFp+Qm5+DKu+A2dgkrrE+Q1N1a JPJ/6Vh3f7it1aGEoJJe4dfAvT1BVHmnNSvdLqv0Myv7vPa8r6jo4qxUIcAelznU0l2V X/MJEGV7alh/Ippn/zqH7BS51RbmWHidYx56s3cspG0y9/JTotFVS9VTSo985V8ydARO 4tOu/fNMdYU2IZy80u06CvD+D+4jZaCHea2rmT8Y39vzeTPIRU8OX9tAkUNx6YQOk/8y koxA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id e8si7266072edl.2.2020.05.04.08.38.23; Mon, 04 May 2020 08:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729266AbgEDPbk (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 4 May 2020 11:31:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38134 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726908AbgEDPbj (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 11:31:39 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12A2AF5C; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:31:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 17:31:35 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: rostedt , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , Shile Zhang , Andy Lutomirski , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dave Hansen , Tzvetomir Stoyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: Sync vmalloc mappings in pcpu_alloc() and free_percpu() Message-ID: <20200504153135.GJ8135@suse.de> References: <20200429054857.66e8e333@oasis.local.home> <20200430141120.GA8135@suse.de> <20200430121136.6d7aeb22@gandalf.local.home> <20200430191434.GC8135@suse.de> <20200430211308.74a994dc@oasis.local.home> <1902703609.78863.1588300015661.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20200430223919.50861011@gandalf.local.home> <20200504151236.GI8135@suse.de> <99290786.82178.1588606126392.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <99290786.82178.1588606126392.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:28:46AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > ----- On May 4, 2020, at 11:12 AM, Joerg Roedel jroedel@suse.de wrote: > Placing this here is inefficient. It syncs mappings for each percpu allocation. > I would recommend moving it right after __vmalloc() is called to allocate the > underlying memory chunk instead: > > static void *pcpu_mem_zalloc(size_t size, gfp_t gfp) > { Tried this before, actually I put it into the caller of pcpu_mem_zalloc(), but that didn't fix the problem for me. Stevens test-case still hangs the machine. Regards, Joerg