Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:24:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, jens.axboe@oracle.com
Subject: Re: Buggy IPI and MTRR code on low memory
In-Reply-To: <1233161182.10992.52.camel@laptop>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901281221450.25359@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901281029150.25359@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1233161182.10992.52.camel@laptop>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1041
Lines: 29


On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ---
> Subject: x86: fix potential deadlock in set_mtrr()
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Date: Wed Jan 28 17:17:32 CET 2009
> 
> smp_call_function() can fall-back to waiting on completion in case of
> low memory (GFP_ATOMIC). set_mtrr() relies on the async behaviour of !wait.
> 
> This would deadlock.
> 
> Fix this by providing per-cpu csd's and using __smp_call_function_single().

I applied the patch but it still locked up in the testing NMI 
watchdog code. Not saying your patch is at fault, because we never made it 
to your code. This is probably not an issue, since if we have low memory 
at bootup, we have much bigger problems to deal with.

I'll have skip the NMI test and see if it locks up any place else.

-- Steve


--
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/