Hi Rik,
I applied your patch to linux-next kernel, then divide error happened
when I ran ltp stress test.
The divide error occurred on the following div_u64(), so the following
should be also fixed...
static unsigned long bdi_position_ratio(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
unsigned long thresh,
unsigned long bg_thresh,
unsigned long dirty,
unsigned long bdi_thresh,
unsigned long bdi_dirty)
{
...
if (bdi_dirty < x_intercept - span / 4) {
pos_ratio = div_u64(pos_ratio * (x_intercept - bdi_dirty),
x_intercept - bdi_setpoint + 1);
The result of disassemble is as follows.
0xffffffff8116f520 <bdi_position_ratio+0xf0>: mov %rsi,%rax
0xffffffff8116f523 <bdi_position_ratio+0xf3>: sub %ebx,%esi
0xffffffff8116f525 <bdi_position_ratio+0xf5>: xor %edx,%edx
0xffffffff8116f527 <bdi_position_ratio+0xf7>: sub %r13,%rax
0xffffffff8116f52a <bdi_position_ratio+0xfa>: add $0x1,%esi
0xffffffff8116f52d <bdi_position_ratio+0xfd>: imul %r11,%rax
0xffffffff8116f531 <bdi_position_ratio+0x101>: div %rsi <= divide error!
The panic log is as follows.
---
[ 4102.894894] divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP
[ 4102.899344] Modules linked in: ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat nf_nat_ipv4 nf_nat nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 xt_conntrack nf_conntrack ipt_REJECT xt_CHECKSUM iptable_mangle tun bridge stp llc ip6table_filter ip6_tables iptable_filter ip_tables ebtable_nat ebtables cfg80211 rfkill btrfs raid456 async_raid6_recov async_memcpy async_pq async_xor async_tx coretemp kvm_intel kvm dm_mod raid6_pq i7core_edac edac_core iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support xor lpc_ich i2c_i801 mfd_core serio_raw pcspkr acpi_power_meter crc32c_intel shpchp ipmi_si tpm_infineon ipmi_msghandler acpi_cpufreq nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd sunrpc uinput xfs libcrc32c sd_mod crc_t10dif crct10dif_common sr_mod cdrom mgag200 syscopyarea sysfillrect sysimgblt i2c_algo_bit drm_kms_helper ttm drm e1000e ahci mptsas libahci scsi_transport_sas libata mptscsih ptp mptbase i2c_core pps_core
[ 4102.984462] CPU: 7 PID: 19758 Comm: mmap-corruption Not tainted 3.15.0-rc3-next-20140429+ #1
[ 4102.993984] Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMERGY TX150 S7 /D2759, BIOS 6.00 Rev. 1.16.2759.A1 06/22/2010
[ 4103.008759] task: ffff88003680ed00 ti: ffff88000db62000 task.ti: ffff88000db62000
[ 4103.017179] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8116f531>] [<ffffffff8116f531>] bdi_position_ratio.isra.12+0x101/0x1d0
[ 4103.027772] RSP: 0000:ffff88000db63be8 EFLAGS: 00010256
[ 4103.033775] RAX: 04790000004f17b7 RBX: 00000000000026f0 RCX: 00003fffffffffff
[ 4103.041807] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
[ 4103.049834] RBP: ffff88000db63c00 R08: 0000000000001623 R09: 000000000000063f
[ 4103.057897] R10: 000000000000065e R11: 0000000000000479 R12: 000000000000065f
[ 4103.065959] R13: 0000000000001540 R14: ffffea0000e4af30 R15: 0000000000000001
[ 4103.073992] FS: 00007f869a3e8740(0000) GS:ffff88003f5c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 4103.083093] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 4103.089558] CR2: 00007f8694bc6000 CR3: 0000000037332000 CR4: 00000000000007e0
[ 4103.097595] Stack:
[ 4103.099859] 0000000000001540 0000000000000000 ffff8800347e3570 ffff88000db63d18
[ 4103.108240] ffffffff8162f858 0000000000001540 ffffffff8120cbc1 ffff88000db63c48
[ 4103.116614] ffffffff8120c318 ffffea00003b7dc0 0000000000001000 0000000000000000
[ 4103.124984] Call Trace:
[ 4103.127740] [<ffffffff8162f858>] balance_dirty_pages.isra.21+0x278/0x5f1
[ 4103.135378] [<ffffffff8120cbc1>] ? __block_commit_write.isra.21+0x81/0xb0
[ 4103.143115] [<ffffffff8120c318>] ? __set_page_dirty_buffers+0x88/0xb0
[ 4103.150461] [<ffffffff8120fa43>] ? block_page_mkwrite+0x63/0xb0
[ 4103.157222] [<ffffffff81170c97>] balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited+0xe7/0x110
[ 4103.165154] [<ffffffff8119149c>] do_shared_fault+0x15c/0x230
[ 4103.171619] [<ffffffff81192406>] handle_mm_fault+0x2d6/0x1080
[ 4103.178184] [<ffffffff810a0666>] ? ftrace_raw_event_sched_stat_runtime+0x86/0xc0
[ 4103.188806] [<ffffffff8105dff6>] __do_page_fault+0x1b6/0x550
[ 4103.197479] [<ffffffff81142b2a>] ? ftrace_event_buffer_commit+0x8a/0xc0
[ 4103.207216] [<ffffffff810a0c63>] ? ftrace_raw_event_sched_switch+0xb3/0xf0
[ 4103.217240] [<ffffffff81012625>] ? __switch_to+0x165/0x590
[ 4103.225710] [<ffffffff8105e3c1>] do_page_fault+0x31/0x70
[ 4103.233948] [<ffffffff8163dec8>] page_fault+0x28/0x30
[ 4103.241856] Code: 48 c1 e9 12 48 c1 eb 10 48 c1 ee 10 48 01 de 48 89 f2 48 29 ca 49 39 d5 73 14 48 89 f0 29 de 31 d2 4c 29 e8 83 c6 01 49 0f af c3 <48> f7 f6 4c 89 e2 48 d1 ea 49 39 d5 73 15 49 c1 ec 04 4d 39 e5
[ 4103.268205] RIP [<ffffffff8116f531>] bdi_position_ratio.isra.12+0x101/0x1d0
[ 4103.278446] RSP <ffff88000db63be8>
---
Thanks,
Masayoshi Mizuma
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:19:10 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote:
It is possible for "limit - setpoint + 1" to equal zero, leading to a
divide by zero error. Blindly adding 1 to "limit - setpoint" is not
working, so we need to actually test the divisor before calling div64.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
mm/page-writeback.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
index ef41349..2682516 100644
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -597,11 +597,16 @@ static inline long long pos_ratio_polynom(unsigned long setpoint,
unsigned long dirty,
unsigned long limit)
{
+ unsigned int divisor;
long long pos_ratio;
long x;
+ divisor = limit - setpoint;
+ if (!divisor)
+ divisor = 1;
+
x = div_s64(((s64)setpoint - (s64)dirty) << RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT,
- limit - setpoint + 1);
+ divisor);
pos_ratio = x;
pos_ratio = pos_ratio * x >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
pos_ratio = pos_ratio * x >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
--
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>
--
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>