lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -rt] rt-slab: fix cpu inconsistency case
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote:
>
>> mm/slab.c:cache_alloc_refill()
>> if (unlikely(!ac->avail)) {
>> int x;
>> x = cache_grow(cachep, flags | GFP_THISNODE, cpu_to_node(*this_cpu), NULL, this_cpu);
>>
>> /* cache_grow can reenable interrupts, then ac could change. */
>> ac = cpu_cache_get(cachep, *this_cpu);
>>
>> The comment says, "ac could change", but it never if *this_cpu is same.
>>
>> In cache_alloc_refill(), cpu_cache_get() should called with the valid cpu id
>> after cache_grow(). Because on !PREEMPT_RT, the array_cache is protected by
>> disabling irqs, so array_cache of other cpu shouldn't be accessed.
>
> Ah, sorry I missed the !PREEMPT_RT part.

no problem. I also missed to say clearly this issue is on !PREEMPT_RT :-)

>
>>>> # define slab_irq_disable_rt(flags) do { (void)(flags); } while (0)
>>>> # define slab_irq_enable_rt(flags) do { (void)(flags); } while (0)
>>>> # define slab_spin_lock_irq(lock, cpu) \
>>>> @@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU_LOCKED(int, slab_irq_locks) = { 0, };
>>>> do { slab_irq_enable(cpu); (void) (flags); } while (0)
>>>> # define slab_irq_disable_rt(cpu) slab_irq_disable(cpu)
>>>> # define slab_irq_enable_rt(cpu) slab_irq_enable(cpu)
>>>> -# define slab_irq_disable_nort() do { } while (0)
>>>> -# define slab_irq_enable_nort() do { } while (0)
>>>> +# define slab_irq_disable_nort(cpu) do { } while (0)
>>>> +# define slab_irq_enable_nort(cpu) do { } while (0)
>>> And these are the PREEMPT_RT version. So basically, this patch is a nop
>>> for PREEMPT_RT. I doubt it will solve your bug ;-)
>> yes, it's nop. I'm sorry, I didn't show .config.
>> My kernel config is !PREEMPT_RT, it's same as the deadlock report.
>> I guess it's a problem only !PREEMPT_RT.
>
> Hmm, I'll have to look deeper into this on Monday (I'm off today -
> Friday).

thanks for taking time.

>
> Is this a bug in mainline? The !PREEMPT_RT case should be as close to
> mainline as possible, with no actual changes in object code. If this is
> not the case, then we need to fix that.

No, this issue is in -rt only.

thanks,
Hiroshi Shimamoto


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 21:51    [W:0.054 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site