Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 09/18/2015 12:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Gaah, my mailer autocompleted Jens' email with an old one..

Sorry for the repeat email with the correct address.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

PS: just hit another "did this just get broken in 4.3-rc1" issue - I
can't run blktrace while there's a IO load because:

$ sudo blktrace -d /dev/vdc
BLKTRACESETUP(2) /dev/vdc failed: 5/Input/output error
Thread 1 failed open /sys/kernel/debug/block/(null)/trace1: 2/No such file or directory
....

[  641.424618] blktrace: page allocation failure: order:5, mode:0x2040d0
[  641.438933]  [<ffffffff811c1569>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x129/0x400
[  641.440240]  [<ffffffff811424f8>] relay_open+0x68/0x2c0
[  641.441299]  [<ffffffff8115deb1>] do_blk_trace_setup+0x191/0x2d0

gdb) l *(relay_open+0x68)
0xffffffff811424f8 is in relay_open (kernel/relay.c:582).
577                     return NULL;
578             if (subbuf_size > UINT_MAX / n_subbufs)
579                     return NULL;
580
581             chan = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rchan), GFP_KERNEL);
582             if (!chan)
583                     return NULL;
584
585             chan->version = RELAYFS_CHANNEL_VERSION;
586             chan->n_subbufs = n_subbufs;

and struct rchan has a member struct rchan_buf *buf[NR_CPUS];
and CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8192, hence the attempt at an order 5 allocation
that fails here....

Hm. Have you always had MAX_SMP (and the NR_CPU==8192 that it causes)?
 From a quick check, none of this code seems to be new.

That said, having that

         struct rchan_buf *buf[NR_CPUS];

in "struct rchan" really is something we should fix. We really should
strive to not allocate things by CONFIG_NR_CPU's, but by the actual
real CPU count.

This looks to be mostly Jens' code, and much of it harkens back to 2006. Jens?

The relayfs code mostly came out of IBM, but yes, that alloc doesn't look nice. Not a regression, though, I don't think that has changed in years. I'll take a stab at fixing this.

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux