Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1500641 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] mm/percpu.c: fix panic triggered by BUG_ON() falsely

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] mm/percpu.c: fix panic triggered by BUG_ON()  falsely zijun_hu <zijun_hu@zoho.com> - 2016-10-14 02:10 +0200
    Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] mm/percpu.c: fix panic triggered by BUG_ON()  falsely Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-10-14 02:30 +0200

#1500641 — Re: [RFC v2 PATCH] mm/percpu.c: fix panic triggered by BUG_ON() falsely

On 2016/10/14 7:29, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:00:28PM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
>> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>
>>
>> as shown by pcpu_build_alloc_info(), the number of units within a percpu
>> group is educed by rounding up the number of CPUs within the group to
>> @upa boundary, therefore, the number of CPUs isn't equal to the units's
>> if it isn't aligned to @upa normally. however, pcpu_page_first_chunk()
>> uses BUG_ON() to assert one number is equal the other roughly, so a panic
>> is maybe triggered by the BUG_ON() falsely.
>>
>> in order to fix this issue, the number of CPUs is rounded up then compared
>> with units's, the BUG_ON() is replaced by warning and returning error code
>> as well to keep system alive as much as possible.
> 
> I really can't decode what the actual issue is here.  Can you please
> give an example of a concrete case?
> 
the right relationship between the number of CPUs @nr_cpus within a percpu group
and the number of unites @nr_units within the same group is that
@nr_units == roundup(@nr_cpus, @upa);

the process of consideration is shown as follows:

1） current code segments:

BUG_ON(ai->nr_groups != 1);
BUG_ON(ai->groups[0].nr_units != num_possible_cpus());

2） changes for considering the right relationship between the number of CPUs and units 

BUG_ON(ai->nr_groups != 1);
BUG_ON(ai->groups[0].nr_units != roundup(num_possible_cpus(), @upa));

3) replace BUG_ON() by warning and returning error code since it seems BUG_ON() isn't
   nice as shown by linus recent LKML mail

BUG_ON(ai->nr_groups != 1);
if (ai->groups[0].nr_units != roundup(num_possible_cpus(), @upa))
   return -EINVAL;

so 3) is my finial changes;


for the relationship of both numbers : see the reply for andrew
thanks

;
>> @@ -2113,21 +2120,22 @@ int __init pcpu_page_first_chunk(size_t reserved_size,
>>  
>>  	/* allocate pages */
>>  	j = 0;
>> -	for (unit = 0; unit < num_possible_cpus(); unit++)
>> +	for (unit = 0; unit < num_possible_cpus(); unit++) {
>> +		unsigned int cpu = ai->groups[0].cpu_map[unit];
>>  		for (i = 0; i < unit_pages; i++) {
>> -			unsigned int cpu = ai->groups[0].cpu_map[unit];
>>  			void *ptr;
>>  
>>  			ptr = alloc_fn(cpu, PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE);
>>  			if (!ptr) {
>>  				pr_warn("failed to allocate %s page for cpu%u\n",
>> -					psize_str, cpu);
>> +						psize_str, cpu);
> 
> And stop making gratuitous changes?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1500644

Hello,

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 08:06:10AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote:
> > I really can't decode what the actual issue is here.  Can you please
> > give an example of a concrete case?
> > 
> the right relationship between the number of CPUs @nr_cpus within a percpu group
> and the number of unites @nr_units within the same group is that
> @nr_units == roundup(@nr_cpus, @upa);

My question was whether there can be actual hardware configurations
where this code can fail and if so what they look like and how they
would fail.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web