From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Angel Shtilianov <angel.shtilianov@siteground.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, dennis@kernel.org, cl@linux.com,
jeyu@kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Ipmi modules and linux-4.19.1
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 07:42:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181220154217.GB2509588@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJM9R-JWO1P_qJzw2JboMH2dgPX7K1tF49nO5ojvf=iwGddXRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello, Angel.
(cc'ing Paul for SRCU)
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:55:10AM +0200, Angel Shtilianov wrote:
> Hi everybody.
> A couple of days I've decided to migrate several servers on
> linux-4.19. What I've observed is that I have no /dev/ipmi. After
> taking a look into the boot log I've found that ipmi modules are
> complaining about percpu memory allocation failures:
> https://pastebin.com/MCDssZzV
...
> -#define PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE (28 << 10)
> +#define PERCPU_DYNAMIC_RESERVE (28 << 11)
So, you prolly just needed to bump this number. The reserved percpu
area is used to accommodate static percpu variables used by modules.
They are special because code generation assumes static symbols aren't
too far from the program counter. The usual dynamic percpu area is
way high up in vmalloc area, so if we put static percpu allocations
there, they go out of range for module symbol relocations.
The reserved area has some issues.
1. The area is not dynamically mapped, meaning that however much we
reserve is hard allocated on boot for future module uses, so we
don't can't increase it willy-nilly.
2. There is no mechanism to adjust the size dynamically. 28k is just
a number I pulled out of my ass after looking at some common
configs like a decade ago, so it being low now isn't too
surprising. Provided that we can't make it run-time dynamic (and I
can't think of a way to do that), the right thing to do would be
sizing it during build with some buffer and allow it to be
overridden boot time. This is definitely doable.
BTW, ipmi's extra usage, 8k, is coming from the use of static SRCU.
Paul, that's quite a bit of percpu memory to reserve statically.
Would it be possible to make srcu_struct init dynamic so that it can
use the normal percpu_alloc? That way, this problem can be completely
side-stepped and it only occupies percpu memory which tends to be
pretty expensive unless ipmi is actually initialized.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-20 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-20 7:55 Angel Shtilianov
2018-12-20 15:42 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2018-12-20 16:00 ` Tejun Heo
2018-12-20 16:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-12-20 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-12-20 16:05 ` Tejun Heo
2018-12-20 16:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-12-20 21:59 ` Corey Minyard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181220154217.GB2509588@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=angel.shtilianov@siteground.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=jeyu@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox