On 2023/2/28 0:14, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 16:08, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [CCing the regression list, as it should be in the loop for regressions: >> https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/reporting-regressions.html] >> >> On 07.02.23 12:29, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 05:03:32PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 16:07, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 03:06:44PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 01:41:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2023 10:44:31 +0800 Liu Shixin <liushixin2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022/12/27 17:26, Liu Shixin wrote: >>>>>>>>> After I add a 10GB pmem device, I got the following error message when >>>>>>>>> insert module: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> insmod: vmalloc error: size 16384, vm_struct allocation failed, >>>>>>>>> mode:0xcc0(GFP_KERNEL), nodemask=(null),cpuset=/,mems_allowed=0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE is set, the module region can be located in the >>>>>>>>> vmalloc region entirely. Although module_alloc() can fall back to a 2GB >>>>>>>>> window if ARM64_MODULE_PLTS is set, the module region is still easily >>>>>>>>> exhausted because the module region is located at bottom of vmalloc region >>>>>>>>> and the vmalloc region is allocated from bottom to top. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skip module region if not calling from module_alloc(). >>>>>>> I'll assume this is for the arm tree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> This looks like the same issue previously reported at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/e6a804de-a5f7-c551-ffba-e09d04e438fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>>>> >>>>>> where Ard had a few suggestions but, afaict, they didn't help. >>>>>> >>>> Thanks for the cc. >>>> >>>> So this is a bit clunky, and I wonder whether we wouldn't be better >>>> off just splitting the vmalloc region into two separate regions: one >>>> for the kernel and modules, and one for everything else. That way, we >>>> lose one bit of entropy in the randomized placement, but the default >>>> 48-bit VA space is vast anway, and even on 39-bit VA configs (such as >>>> Android), I seriously doubt that we come anywhere close to exhausting >>>> the vmalloc space today. >>> That sounds like a good idea to me. >>> >>> Liu Shixin -- do you think you could have a go at implementing Ard's >>> suggestion instead? >> Liu Shixin, did you ever look into realizing this idea? >> >> Or was some progress already made and I just missed it? >> > This patch > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230223204101.1500373-1-ardb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > should fix the issue. > >> I'm asking, as the idea discussed afaics is not only supposed to fix the >> regression you tried to address, but also one that is now three months >> old and stalled since Mid-December -- which is really unfortunate, as >> that's not how regressions should be handled. :-/ > Is it documented anywhere how regressions should be handled? The > mailing list is flooded with hard to reproduce reports from users as > well as automatic fuzzers and build bots, so I don't think it is > entirely unreasonable to move unresponsive reporters to the back of > the queue. > >> But well, it afaik was >> caused by a patch from Ard, so it's obviously not your job to address >> it. But it seems you were working on it. >> > We are all working together here, so please refrain from telling > people what they should or should not be working on. (I am aware that > you probably did not mean it that way, but things tend to get lost in > translation very easily on the mailing list) > > Liu, could you please check whether the linked patch addresses your issue? Thanks, I will try this patch. > > Thanks, > Ard. > . >
