On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 09:55:31AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >On 2017/5/26 9:36, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:04:44AM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >>> I hit the overlap issue, but it is hard to reproduced. if you think it is safe. and the situation >>> is not happen. AFAIC, it is no need to add the code. >>> >>> if you insist on the point. Maybe VM_WARN_ON is a choice. >>> >> Do you have some log to show the overlap happens? > Hi wei > >cat /proc/vmallocinfo >0xf1580000-0xf1600000 524288 raw_dump_mem_write+0x10c/0x188 phys=8b901000 ioremap >0xf1638000-0xf163a000 8192 mcss_pou_queue_init+0xa0/0x13c [mcss] phys=fc614000 ioremap >0xf528e000-0xf5292000 16384 n_tty_open+0x10/0xd0 pages=3 vmalloc >0xf5000000-0xf9001000 67112960 devm_ioremap+0x38/0x70 phys=40000000 ioremap These two ranges overlap. This is hard to say where is the problem. From the code point of view, I don't see there is possibility to allocate an overlapped range. Which version of your kernel? Hard to reproduce means just see once? >0xfe001000-0xfe002000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=20001000 ioremap >0xfe200000-0xfe201000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=1a000000 ioremap >0xff100000-0xff101000 4096 iotable_init+0x0/0xc phys=2000a000 ioremap > >I hit the above issue, but the log no more useful info. it just is found by accident. >and it is hard to reprodeced. no more info can be supported for further investigation. >therefore, it is no idea for me. > >Thanks >zhongjinag > -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
