Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On 8/7/07, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/07, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> we are getting a lot of
>>>>>>>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at 
>>>>>>>> mm/page_alloc.c:1225
>>>>>>>> in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0
>>>>>>>>  [<c010305d>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
>>>>>>>>  [<c0103156>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
>>>>>>>>  [<c0103915>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
>>>>>>>>  [<c010c4ab>] __might_sleep+0xcd/0xd3
>>>>>>>>  [<c0149488>] __alloc_pages+0x32/0x281
>>>>>>>>  [<c014fdd2>] copy_page_range+0x221/0x41e
>>>>>>>>  [<c010ec18>] copy_process+0x9e1/0xfe2
>>>>>>>>  [<c010f415>] do_fork+0x99/0x176
>>>>>>>>  [<c0100e75>] sys_clone+0x33/0x39
>>>>>>>>  [<c0102aaf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
>>>>>>>>  =======================
>>>>>>>> here due to a Xenomai program issuing system() calls.
>>>>>>>> After once again dissecting the "nice" mm code (sigh...), the reason
>>>>>>>> turned out to be plain simple:
>>>>>>>> copy_pte_range(...);
>>>>>>>>   spin_lock_nested(src_ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>>>>>>>>   copy_one_pte(...);
>>>>>>>>     if (is_cow_mapping(vm_flags))
>>>>>>>>       alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER, ...);
>>>>>>>>         __alloc_pages(...)
>>>>>>>>        might_sleep_if(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT);
>>>>>>>> And this is true due to #define GFP_HIGHUSER (__GFP_WAIT | ...
>>>>>>>> So the bad news is that the COW code in likely all i-pipe versions is
>>>>>>>> broken. But the good new is that this might be easily fixable by
>>>>>>>> providing the right gfp_mask. GFP_ATOMIC?
>>>>>>> It does not look like a good solution, you are going to empty the
>>>>>>> GFP_ATOMIC pools. The proper solution would rather be to look at the
>>>>>>> real mm code (I mean not the one I wrote) and see how they cope with
>>>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>> Mmpf. What are the chances for a quick fix within the next days? We have
>>>>>> to consider alternatives right now here because the whole system is
>>>>>> meant for production purpose next week (C-ELROB '07).
>>>>>> OK, I'm already finding myself inside the code :-/. What about this
>>>>>> approach: We try to alloc with GFP_ATOMIC. Once this fails, we break
>>>>>> out, drop all locks (just like it happens in case of need_resched()),
>>>>>> try to fill up the pool, and restart then. What would reliably make
>>>>>> Linux refill its atomic pool?
>>>>>> Alternative approach: preallocate the required pages before entering the
>>>>>> loop in copy_pte_range. But that may require more code changes.
>>>>> I would say the real fix is to drop momentarily the spinlock(s?) for 
>>>>> allocating.
>>>> Are you sure it's safe to drop locks in the (logical) middle of
>>>> copy_one_pte()? I can't tell yet from the few glances I took. It's just
>>>> my feeling that says "no" so far.
>>> There is certainly something possible, since the vanilla kernel
>>> actually works without these warning.
>> Vanilla doesn't allocate pages from within copy_one_pte.
> The fact that you are in a hurry should not be an excuse to propose a
> fix which is much worse than the bug itself.

Please explain.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to