On 09/24/2012 11:49 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:16:50PM +0200, Conny Seidel wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:36:09 +0200
Borislav Petkov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[ a?| ]

Conny, would you test pls?

Sure thing.
Out of ~25 runs I only triggered it once, without the patch the
trigger-rate is higher.

[   55.098249] Broke affinity for irq 81
[   55.105108] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
[   55.311216] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x11
[   55.333022] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0x400
[   55.545877] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
[   55.753050] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 2 APIC 0x12
[   55.775582] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0x400
[   55.986747] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
[   56.193839] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x13
[   56.212643] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0x400
[   56.423201] Got negative events: -25

I see it:

__percpu_counter_sum does for_each_online_cpu without doing
get/put_online_cpus().

Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't immediately tell me
what's the exact source of the bug.. Note that there is a hotplug
callback percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback() that takes the same
fbc->lock before updating/resetting the percpu counters of offline
CPU. So, though the synchronization is a bit weird, I don't
immediately see a problematic race condition there.

And, speaking of hotplug callbacks, on a slightly different note,
I see one defined as ratelimit_handler(), which calls
writeback_set_ratelimit() for *every single* state change in the
hotplug sequence! Is that really intentional? num_online_cpus()
changes its value only -once- for every hotplug :-)

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>