From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A1FC4724C for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0C4206D7 for ; Mon, 4 May 2020 15:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="n57b7Oiy" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729165AbgEDPip (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:45 -0400 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.26.124]:33790 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726551AbgEDPip (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54387293108; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id wBtw50ZU26bZ; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C1E29301F; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com F0C1E29301F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1588606724; bh=Gy6vkWMHf66R561OSG3T3GNqfTM+kJgguKmehJQJ/5o=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=n57b7OiyMvzg+fGdys5pLsCdbsWmGFmPG5b7sYdxruVIWplZprUodMkBtVzFndgkK rM6EfdDOCBZiBzN522zv+/KZn+2Zzh//AgSWLqrY13ic3etZZOABK3fiwRDw1klprS 2RDuKzFpcpG1YwkFTEj+Gp+iKnyg+Azg4+T9EYr4cxXQqyBQ+Lplu0bIYbgh6VkHxq h8bATzoFXLpymQVdOXVLNSvblaMh0CSyVR0vGw46Ph/o0A7miLXiOFoy5nQtJocRjv VOIPsY+TXEuhtXJZ4/Aa4umjW5WpWXEai/qjeScbIA+gfxnQP61euoIE2asj1XaZR1 HB+51BGLcDzLw== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id sexFtVLxPHTS; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC07229301D; Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 11:38:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Joerg Roedel 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 Message-ID: <1533922227.82188.1588606723786.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20200504153135.GJ8135@suse.de> References: <20200429054857.66e8e333@oasis.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> <20200504153135.GJ8135@suse.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: Sync vmalloc mappings in pcpu_alloc() and free_percpu() MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.114.26.124] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3918 (ZimbraWebClient - FF75 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3895) Thread-Topic: percpu: Sync vmalloc mappings in pcpu_alloc() and free_percpu() Thread-Index: koijJ/z6mXCPro7wCDn7K0mtIqgv5g== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- On May 4, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Joerg Roedel jroedel@suse.de wrote: > 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. That's unexpected. Did you confirm that those hangs were also caused by percpu allocations ? Maybe adding the vmalloc_sync_mappings() at each percpu allocation happens to luckily sync mappings after some other vmalloc. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com