1. 30 7月, 2009 5 次提交
  2. 28 7月, 2009 1 次提交
    • B
      mm: Pass virtual address to [__]p{te,ud,md}_free_tlb() · 9e1b32ca
      Benjamin Herrenschmidt 提交于
      mm: Pass virtual address to [__]p{te,ud,md}_free_tlb()
      
      Upcoming paches to support the new 64-bit "BookE" powerpc architecture
      will need to have the virtual address corresponding to PTE page when
      freeing it, due to the way the HW table walker works.
      
      Basically, the TLB can be loaded with "large" pages that cover the whole
      virtual space (well, sort-of, half of it actually) represented by a PTE
      page, and which contain an "indirect" bit indicating that this TLB entry
      RPN points to an array of PTEs from which the TLB can then create direct
      entries. Thus, in order to invalidate those when PTE pages are deleted,
      we need the virtual address to pass to tlbilx or tlbivax instructions.
      
      The old trick of sticking it somewhere in the PTE page struct page sucks
      too much, the address is almost readily available in all call sites and
      almost everybody implemets these as macros, so we may as well add the
      argument everywhere. I added it to the pmd and pud variants for consistency.
      Signed-off-by: NBenjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
      Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> [MN10300 & FRV]
      Acked-by: NNick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
      Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> [s390]
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9e1b32ca
  3. 11 7月, 2009 1 次提交
  4. 10 7月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 08 7月, 2009 6 次提交
  6. 07 7月, 2009 4 次提交
  7. 02 7月, 2009 1 次提交
    • I
      kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug · 57d81f6f
      Ingo Molnar 提交于
      One of the kmemleak changes caused the following
      scheduling-while-holding-the-tasklist-lock regression on x86:
      
      BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/kmemleak.c:795
      in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 1737, name: kmemleak
      2 locks held by kmemleak/1737:
       #0:  (scan_mutex){......}, at: [<c10c4376>] kmemleak_scan_thread+0x45/0x86
       #1:  (tasklist_lock){......}, at: [<c10c3bb4>] kmemleak_scan+0x1a9/0x39c
      Pid: 1737, comm: kmemleak Not tainted 2.6.31-rc1-tip #59266
      Call Trace:
       [<c105ac0f>] ? __debug_show_held_locks+0x1e/0x20
       [<c102e490>] __might_sleep+0x10a/0x111
       [<c10c38d5>] scan_yield+0x17/0x3b
       [<c10c3970>] scan_block+0x39/0xd4
       [<c10c3bc6>] kmemleak_scan+0x1bb/0x39c
       [<c10c4331>] ? kmemleak_scan_thread+0x0/0x86
       [<c10c437b>] kmemleak_scan_thread+0x4a/0x86
       [<c104d73e>] kthread+0x6e/0x73
       [<c104d6d0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x73
       [<c100959f>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
      kmemleak: 834 new suspected memory leaks (see /sys/kernel/debug/kmemleak)
      
      The bit causing it is highly dubious:
      
      static void scan_yield(void)
      {
              might_sleep();
      
              if (time_is_before_eq_jiffies(next_scan_yield)) {
                      schedule();
                      next_scan_yield = jiffies + jiffies_scan_yield;
              }
      }
      
      It called deep inside the codepath and in a conditional way,
      and that is what crapped up when one of the new scan_block()
      uses grew a tasklist_lock dependency.
      
      This minimal patch removes that yielding stuff and adds the
      proper cond_resched().
      
      The background scanning thread could probably also be reniced
      to +10.
      Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Acked-by: NPekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      57d81f6f
  8. 01 7月, 2009 3 次提交
  9. 30 6月, 2009 2 次提交
  10. 29 6月, 2009 1 次提交
    • P
      SLAB: Fix lockdep annotations · ec5a36f9
      Pekka Enberg 提交于
      Commit 8429db5c... ("slab: setup cpu caches later on when interrupts are
      enabled") broke mm/slab.c lockdep annotations:
      
        [   11.554715] =============================================
        [   11.555249] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
        [   11.555560] 2.6.31-rc1 #896
        [   11.555861] ---------------------------------------------
        [   11.556127] udevd/1899 is trying to acquire lock:
        [   11.556436]  (&nc->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810c337f>] kmem_cache_free+0xcd/0x25b
        [   11.557101]
        [   11.557102] but task is already holding lock:
        [   11.557706]  (&nc->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810c3cd0>] kfree+0x137/0x292
        [   11.558109]
        [   11.558109] other info that might help us debug this:
        [   11.558720] 2 locks held by udevd/1899:
        [   11.558983]  #0:  (&nc->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810c3cd0>] kfree+0x137/0x292
        [   11.559734]  #1:  (&parent->list_lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810c36c7>] __drain_alien_cache+0x3b/0xbd
        [   11.560442]
        [   11.560443] stack backtrace:
        [   11.561009] Pid: 1899, comm: udevd Not tainted 2.6.31-rc1 #896
        [   11.561276] Call Trace:
        [   11.561632]  [<ffffffff81065ed6>] __lock_acquire+0x15ec/0x168f
        [   11.561901]  [<ffffffff81065f60>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1676/0x168f
        [   11.562171]  [<ffffffff81063c52>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x113/0x13e
        [   11.562490]  [<ffffffff8150c337>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
        [   11.562807]  [<ffffffff8106603a>] lock_acquire+0xc1/0xe5
        [   11.563073]  [<ffffffff810c337f>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xcd/0x25b
        [   11.563385]  [<ffffffff8150c8fc>] _spin_lock+0x31/0x66
        [   11.563696]  [<ffffffff810c337f>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xcd/0x25b
        [   11.563964]  [<ffffffff810c337f>] kmem_cache_free+0xcd/0x25b
        [   11.564235]  [<ffffffff8109bf8c>] ? __free_pages+0x1b/0x24
        [   11.564551]  [<ffffffff810c3564>] slab_destroy+0x57/0x5c
        [   11.564860]  [<ffffffff810c3641>] free_block+0xd8/0x123
        [   11.565126]  [<ffffffff810c372e>] __drain_alien_cache+0xa2/0xbd
        [   11.565441]  [<ffffffff810c3ce5>] kfree+0x14c/0x292
        [   11.565752]  [<ffffffff8144a007>] skb_release_data+0xc6/0xcb
        [   11.566020]  [<ffffffff81449cf0>] __kfree_skb+0x19/0x86
        [   11.566286]  [<ffffffff81449d88>] consume_skb+0x2b/0x2d
        [   11.566631]  [<ffffffff8144cbe0>] skb_free_datagram+0x14/0x3a
        [   11.566901]  [<ffffffff81462eef>] netlink_recvmsg+0x164/0x258
        [   11.567170]  [<ffffffff81443461>] sock_recvmsg+0xe5/0xfe
        [   11.567486]  [<ffffffff810ab063>] ? might_fault+0xaf/0xb1
        [   11.567802]  [<ffffffff81053a78>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38
        [   11.568073]  [<ffffffff810d84ca>] ? core_sys_select+0x3d/0x2b4
        [   11.568378]  [<ffffffff81065f60>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1676/0x168f
        [   11.568693]  [<ffffffff81442dc1>] ? sockfd_lookup_light+0x1b/0x54
        [   11.568961]  [<ffffffff81444416>] sys_recvfrom+0xa3/0xf8
        [   11.569228]  [<ffffffff81063c8a>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
        [   11.569546]  [<ffffffff8100af2b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b#
      
      Fix that up.
      
      Closes-bug: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13654Tested-by: NVenkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NPekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
      ec5a36f9
  11. 27 6月, 2009 4 次提交
  12. 26 6月, 2009 3 次提交
  13. 25 6月, 2009 4 次提交
  14. 24 6月, 2009 4 次提交