Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mm/vmalloc.c: Fix percpu free VM area search criteria

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

 




On 7/30/19 2:55 PM, Dennis Zhou wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:13:25PM -0700, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote:
On 7/30/19 1:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
+		/*
+		 * If required width exeeds current VA block, move
+		 * base downwards and then recheck.
+		 */
+		if (base + end > va->va_end) {
+			base = pvm_determine_end_from_reverse(&va, align) - end;
+			term_area = area;
+			continue;
+		}
+
   		/*
   		 * If this VA does not fit, move base downwards and recheck.
   		 */
-		if (base + start < va->va_start || base + end > va->va_end) {
+		if (base + start < va->va_start) {
   			va = node_to_va(rb_prev(&va->rb_node));
   			base = pvm_determine_end_from_reverse(&va, align) - end;
   			term_area = area;
--
2.21.0

I guess it is NUMA related issue, i mean when we have several
areas/sizes/offsets. Is that correct?
I don't think NUMA has anything to do with it.  The vmalloc() area
itself doesn't have any NUMA properties I can think of.  We don't, for
instance, partition it into per-node areas that I know of.

I did encounter this issue on a system with ~100 logical CPUs, which is
a moderate amount these days.
I agree with Dave. I don't think this issue is related to NUMA. The problem
here is about the logic we use to find appropriate vm_area that satisfies
the offset and size requirements of pcpu memory allocator.

In my test case, I can reproduce this issue if we make request with offset
(ffff000000) and size (600000).

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux kernel developer

I misspoke earlier. I don't think it's numa related either, but I think
you could trigger this much more easily this way as it could skip more
viable vma space because it'd have to find more holes.

But it seems that pvm_determine_end_from_reverse() will return the free
vma below the address if it is aligned so:

     base + end > va->va_end

will always be true and then push down the searching va instead of using
that va first.

It won't be always true. Initially base address is calculated as below:

base = pvm_determine_end_from_reverse(&va, align) - end;

So for first iteration it will not fail.

Thanks,
Dennis

--
Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy
Linux kernel developer




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux