On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 02-12-16 15:38:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Fri 02-12-16 09:24:35, Dan Streetman wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Wed 30-11-16 13:15:16, Yu Zhao wrote:
>> > >> __unregister_cpu_notifier() only removes registered notifier from its
>> > >> linked list when CPU hotplug is configured. If we free registered CPU
>> > >> notifier when HOTPLUG_CPU=n, we corrupt the linked list.
>> > >>
>> > >> To fix the problem, we can either use a static CPU notifier that walks
>> > >> through each pool or just simply disable CPU notifier when CPU hotplug
>> > >> is not configured (which is perfectly safe because the code in question
>> > >> is called after all possible CPUs are online and will remain online
>> > >> until power off).
>> > >>
>> > >> v2: #ifdef for cpu_notifier_register_done during cleanup.
>> > >
>> > > this ifedfery is just ugly as hell. I am also wondering whether it is
>> > > really needed. __register_cpu_notifier and __unregister_cpu_notifier are
>> > > noops for CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU=n. So what's exactly that is broken here?
>> >
>> > hmm, that's interesting, __unregister_cpu_notifier is always a noop if
>> > HOTPLUG_CPU=n, but __register_cpu_notifier is only a noop if
>> > HOTPLUG_CPU=n *and* MODULE. If !MODULE, __register_cpu_notifier does
>>
>> OK, I've missed the MODULE part
>>
>> > actually register! This was added by commit
>> > 47e627bc8c9a70392d2049e6af5bd55fae61fe53 ('hotplug: Allow modules to
>> > use the cpu hotplug notifiers even if !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU') and looks
>> > like it's to allow built-ins to register so they can notice during
>> > boot when cpus are initialized.
>>
>> I cannot say I wound understand the motivation but that is not really
>> all that important.
>>
>> > IMHO, that is the real problem - sure, without HOTPLUG_CPU, nobody
>> > should ever get a notification that a cpu is dying, but that doesn't
>> > mean builtins that register notifiers will never unregister their
>> > notifiers and then free them.
>>
>> Yes that is true. That suggests that __unregister_cpu_notifier should
>> the the symmetric thing to the __register_cpu_notifier for
>> CONFIG_MODULE, right?
>
> I meant the following. Completely untested
agreed, but also needs the non-__ version, and kernel/cpu.c needs
tweaking to move those functions out of the #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
section.
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpu.h b/include/linux/cpu.h
> index 797d9c8e9a1b..8d7b473426af 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpu.h
> @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ extern void __unregister_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
> #ifndef MODULE
> extern int register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
> extern int __register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
> +extern void __unregister_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb);
> #else
> static inline int register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> {
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
--
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>