From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933051AbXGQRSu (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:18:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753673AbXGQRSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:18:43 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]:34911 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758312AbXGQRSm (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:18:42 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=dG2WrgfbV/vVzuCEDc5cvBs63WvlEoPE4XIneD6e2T2egqCvrKKjapDanbZACA3WBBjworys1khgMQ+2prAGHRiSQLjmathufvXTXPhhGR4wdTDqkz6u9GkrDpMfpcE0rqmnUA0mnjvge/lLCE8i8UbG8DJlQMx0MThppWVHB2I= Message-ID: <961aa3350707171018i58a47b7asb4a92e1bcd146adf@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:18:41 +0900 From: "Akinobu Mita" To: ego@in.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/10] cpu: deliver CPU_UP_CANCELED only to NOTIFY_OKed callbacks with CPU_UP_PREPARE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rusty Russell" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , "Dmitriy Zavin" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Andi Kleen" , "Ashok Raj" , "Srivatsa Vaddagiri" , heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, kiran@scalex86.org, clameter@sgi.com, "Andrew Morton" In-Reply-To: <20070717082331.GA12231@in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070716134855.GA1858@APFDCB5C> <20070716135347.GD2040@APFDCB5C> <20070717082331.GA12231@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > So it is natural to deliver CPU_UP_CANCELED event only to the functions > > that have returned NOTIFY_OK with CPU_UP_PREPARE event and not to call > > the function that have returned NOTIFY_BAD. This is what this patch is doing. > > Yes, this makes sense. Thank you for making sure of it. >[...] However, it might break slab. > If I am not mistaken, slab code initializes multiple objects in > CPU_UP_PREPARE and relies on the CPU_UP_CANCELLED to destroy the > objects which successfully got initialized before the some object's > initialization went bad. My testing machine is ordinary dual core non numa box. So it might not trigger the problem that you are warried about under heavy slab alloc failure injection. At first glance I couln't find the problem in cpu hottplug code in slab.c yet, but found some memory leak path. (it doesn't break slab though) Index: 2.6-git/mm/slab.c =================================================================== --- 2.6-git.orig/mm/slab.c +++ 2.6-git/mm/slab.c @@ -1221,13 +1221,18 @@ static int __cpuinit cpuup_callback(stru shared = alloc_arraycache(node, cachep->shared * cachep->batchcount, 0xbaadf00d); - if (!shared) + if (!shared) { + kfree(nc); goto bad; + } } if (use_alien_caches) { alien = alloc_alien_cache(node, cachep->limit); - if (!alien) - goto bad; + if (!alien) { + kfree(shared); + kfree(nc); + goto bad; + } } cachep->array[cpu] = nc; l3 = cachep->nodelists[node];