Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756336AbYHZHqU (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:46:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752144AbYHZHqM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:46:12 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:47646 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392AbYHZHqL (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:46:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080826.004607.253712060.davem@davemloft.net> To: mingo@elte.hu Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Alan.Brunelle@hp.com, travis@sgi.com, tglx@linutronix.de, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20080826072220.GB31876@elte.hu> References: <20080826072220.GB31876@elte.hu> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1274 Lines: 30 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:22:20 +0200 > And i guess the next generation of 4K CPUs support should just get away > from cpumask_t-on-kernel-stack model altogether, as the current model is > not maintainable. We tried the on-kernel-stack variant, and it really > does not work reliably. We can fix this in v2.6.28. I recenetly did some work on sparc64 to use cpumask pointers as much as possible. The only case that didn't work was due to a limitation in arch interfaces for the new generic smp_call_function() code. It passes a cpumask_t instead of a pointer to one via arch_send_call_function_ipi(). But other than that, the whole sparc64 SMP stuff uses cpumask_t pointers only. What it comes down to is that you have to do the "self cpu" and other tests in the cross-call dispatch routines themselves, instead of at the top-level working on cpumask_t objects. Otherwise you have to modify cpumask_t objects and thus pluck them onto the stack where they take up silly amounts of space. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/