| Message ID | 20200401104156.11564-1-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm/page_alloc: fix stalls/soft lockups with huge VMs | expand |
On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / > zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. > > David Hildenbrand (2): > mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization > mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred page init" https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com
> On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / > > zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. > > > > David Hildenbrand (2): > > mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization > > mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() > > > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred > page init" > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com Thanks! Took me some time to figure it out. Pankaj > > -- > Thanks, > > David / dhildenb > >
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:31:51PM +0200, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / > > > zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. > > > > > > David Hildenbrand (2): > > > mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization > > > mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() > > > > > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred > > page init" > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com > > Thanks! Took me some time to figure it out. FYI, I'm planning to post an alternate version of that fix, hopefully today if all goes well with my testing.
On 01.04.20 16:45, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:31:51PM +0200, Pankaj Gupta wrote: >>> On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / >>>> zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. >>>> >>>> David Hildenbrand (2): >>>> mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization >>>> mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() >>>> >>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>> >>> Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred >>> page init" >>> >>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com >> >> Thanks! Took me some time to figure it out. > > FYI, I'm planning to post an alternate version of that fix, hopefully today if > all goes well with my testing. > Cool, please CC me :)
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:54:40PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 01.04.20 16:45, Daniel Jordan wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:31:51PM +0200, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > >>> On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>>> Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / > >>>> zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. > >>>> > >>>> David Hildenbrand (2): > >>>> mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization > >>>> mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() > >>>> > >>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>> > >>> Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred > >>> page init" > >>> > >>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com > >> > >> Thanks! Took me some time to figure it out. > > > > FYI, I'm planning to post an alternate version of that fix, hopefully today if > > all goes well with my testing. > > > > Cool, please CC me :) Sure, in fact you already were! :)
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:45:29 -0400 Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:31:51PM +0200, Pankaj Gupta wrote: > > > On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / > > > > zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. > > > > > > > > David Hildenbrand (2): > > > > mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization > > > > mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() > > > > > > > > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred > > > page init" > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com > > > > Thanks! Took me some time to figure it out. > > FYI, I'm planning to post an alternate version of that fix, hopefully today if > all goes well with my testing. I assume you'll redo this two-patch series to apply on top of this forthcoming patch?
> Am 01.04.2020 um 20:06 schrieb Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 10:45:29 -0400 Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:31:51PM +0200, Pankaj Gupta wrote: >>>>> On 01.04.20 12:41, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>> Two fixes for misleading stall messages / soft lockups with huge nodes / >>>>>> zones during boot without CONFIG_PREEMPT. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Hildenbrand (2): >>>>>> mm/page_alloc: fix RCU stalls during deferred page initialization >>>>>> mm/page_alloc: fix watchdog soft lockups during set_zone_contiguous() >>>>>> >>>>>> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 ++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Patch #1 requires "[PATCH v3] mm: fix tick timer stall during deferred >>>>> page init" >>>>> >>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200311123848.118638-1-shile.zhang@linux.alibaba.com >>> >>> Thanks! Took me some time to figure it out. >> >> FYI, I'm planning to post an alternate version of that fix, hopefully today if >> all goes well with my testing. > > I assume you'll redo this two-patch series to apply on top of this > forthcoming patch? > Yes, will wait until the old one in -next has been replaced by a revised one. Thanks!