Hi Gerald,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:08:52PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 10:19:30AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:25:04PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 10:51:38 +0800
> > > Huang Shijie <shijie.huang@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When testing the gigantic page whose order is too large for the buddy
> > > > allocator, the libhugetlbfs test case "counter.sh" will fail.
> > > >
> > > > The failure is caused by:
> > > > 1) kernel fails to allocate a gigantic page for the surplus case.
> > > > And the gather_surplus_pages() will return NULL in the end.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The condition checks for "over-commit" is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > This patch adds code to allocate the gigantic page in the
> > > > __alloc_huge_page(). After this patch, gather_surplus_pages()
> > > > can return a gigantic page for the surplus case.
> > > >
> > > > This patch also changes the condition checks for:
> > > > return_unused_surplus_pages()
> > > > nr_overcommit_hugepages_store()
> > > >
> > > > After this patch, the counter.sh can pass for the gigantic page.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Steve Capper <steve.capper@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <shijie.huang@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/hugetlb.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > > index 0bf4444..2b67aff 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > > > @@ -1574,7 +1574,7 @@ static struct page *__alloc_huge_page(struct hstate *h,
> > > > struct page *page;
> > > > unsigned int r_nid;
> > > >
> > > > - if (hstate_is_gigantic(h))
> > > > + if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_supported())
> > > > return NULL;
> > >
> > > Is it really possible to stumble over gigantic pages w/o having
> > > gigantic_page_supported()?
> > >
> > > Also, I've just tried this on s390 and counter.sh still fails after these
> > > patches, and it should fail on all archs as long as you use the gigantic
> > I guess the failure you met is caused by the libhugetlbfs itself, there are
> > several bugs in the libhugetlbfs. I have a patch set for the
> > libhugetlbfs too. I will send it as soon as possible.
> >
> > > hugepage size as default hugepage size. This is because you only changed
> > > nr_overcommit_hugepages_store(), which handles nr_overcommit_hugepages
> > > in sysfs, and missed hugetlb_overcommit_handler() which handles
> > > /proc/sys/vm/nr_overcommit_hugepages for the default sized hugepages.
> > This is wrong. :)
> Sorry, I was wrong :). The counters test does call the /proc/sys/vm/nr_overcommit_hugepages.
> But in the arm64, it does not trigger a fail for the counters test.
> In an other word, I did not change the hugetlb_overcommit_handler(),
> the counters.sh also can pass in arm64.
After I add the "default_hugepagesz=32M" to the kernel cmdlin, I can
reproduce this issue. Thanks for point this.
>
> I will look at the lockdep issue.
I tested the new patch (will be sent out later) on the arm64 platform,
and I did not meet the lockdep issue when I enabled the lockdep.
The following is my config:
CONFIG_LOCKD=y
CONFIG_LOCKD_V4=y
CONFIG_LOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
# CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC is not set
CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC_VALUE=0
CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y
CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y
CONFIG_LOCK_STAT=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP=y
CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS=y
So do I miss something?
Thanks
Huang Shijie
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>