From: Aditya Gupta <adityag@linux.ibm.com>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
donettom@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, osalvador@suse.de,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org, dakr@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, shan.gavin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/memory: Avoid overhead from for_each_present_section_nr()
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 21:15:03 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x4aif3gwkz5u62u4sk4xaupydgyc6o4dwvi7v6hxlx5quscmrm@6fwtbpplehrk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250410125110.1232329-1-gshan@redhat.com>
On 25/04/10 10:51PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
> for_each_present_section_nr() was introduced to add_boot_memory_block()
> by commit 61659efdb35c ("drivers/base/memory: improve add_boot_memory_block()").
> It causes unnecessary overhead when the present sections are really
> sparse. next_present_section_nr() called by the macro to find the next
> present section, which is far away from the spanning sections in the
> specified block. Too much time consumed by next_present_section_nr()
> in this case, which can lead to softlockup as observed by Aditya Gupta
> on IBM Power10 machine.
>
> watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#248 stuck for 22s! [swapper/248:1]
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 248 UID: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/248 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc1-next-20250408 #1 VOLUNTARY
> Hardware name: 9105-22A POWER10 (raw) 0x800200 opal:v7.1-107-gfda75d121942 PowerNV
> NIP: c00000000209218c LR: c000000002092204 CTR: 0000000000000000
> REGS: c00040000418fa30 TRAP: 0900 Not tainted (6.15.0-rc1-next-20250408)
> MSR: 9000000002009033 <SF,HV,VEC,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE> CR: 28000428 XER: 00000000
> CFAR: 0000000000000000 IRQMASK: 0
> GPR00: c000000002092204 c00040000418fcd0 c000000001b08100 0000000000000040
> GPR04: 0000000000013e00 c000c03ffebabb00 0000000000c03fff c000400fff587f80
> GPR08: 0000000000000000 00000000001196f7 0000000000000000 0000000028000428
> GPR12: 0000000000000000 c000000002e80000 c00000000001007c 0000000000000000
> GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> GPR20: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> GPR24: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> GPR28: c000000002df7f70 0000000000013dc0 c0000000011dd898 0000000008000000
> NIP [c00000000209218c] memory_dev_init+0x114/0x1e0
> LR [c000000002092204] memory_dev_init+0x18c/0x1e0
> Call Trace:
> [c00040000418fcd0] [c000000002092204] memory_dev_init+0x18c/0x1e0 (unreliable)
> [c00040000418fd50] [c000000002091348] driver_init+0x78/0xa4
> [c00040000418fd70] [c0000000020063ac] kernel_init_freeable+0x22c/0x370
> [c00040000418fde0] [c0000000000100a8] kernel_init+0x34/0x25c
> [c00040000418fe50] [c00000000000cd94] ret_from_kernel_user_thread+0x14/0x1c
>
> Avoid the overhead by folding for_each_present_section_nr() to the outer
> loop. add_boot_memory_block() is dropped after that.
>
> Fixes: 61659efdb35c ("drivers/base/memory: improve add_boot_memory_block()")
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20250409180344.477916-1-adityag@linux.ibm.com
> Reported-by: Aditya Gupta <adityag@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/memory.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
Thanks for the fix, Gavin.
Tested on PowerNV Power10 hardware on which the issue was originally
seen, the patch fixes the softlockup issue. Hence,
Tested-by: Aditya Gupta <adityag@linux.ibm.com>
Thanks,
- Aditya G
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-10 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-10 12:51 Gavin Shan
2025-04-10 13:08 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-04-10 13:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-04-10 13:55 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-04-10 14:12 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-04-10 14:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-04-11 5:04 ` Gavin Shan
2025-04-11 8:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-04-11 8:29 ` Oscar Salvador
2025-04-10 14:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-04-10 15:45 ` Aditya Gupta [this message]
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=x4aif3gwkz5u62u4sk4xaupydgyc6o4dwvi7v6hxlx5quscmrm@6fwtbpplehrk \
--to=adityag@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=donettom@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=shan.gavin@gmail.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