Re: [PATCH - sort of] x86: Livelock in handle_pte_fault

From: Stanislav Meduna
Date: Wed May 22 2013 - 03:32:29 EST

On 22.05.2013 02:39, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> The threads do a mlockall too right? I'm not sure mlock will lock memory
> for a new thread's stack.

They don't. However,

"Threads started after a call to mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) will
generate page faults immediately since the new stack is immediately forced
to RAM (due to the MCL_FUTURE flag)."

and as the ps -o min_flt reports zero page faults for the threads
so I think it is also the case.

Anyway, both particular addresses were surely mapped long before
the fault.

>> - the application runs with mlockall()
> With both MCL_FUTURE and MCL_CURRENT set, right?


>> - there is no swap
> Hmm, doesn't mean that code can't be swapped out, as it is just mapped
> from the file it came from. But you'd think mlockall would prevent that.

mlockall also forces the stack to be mapped immediately and not
generating pagefaults when incrementally expanding.

> Seems a bit extreme. Looks to me there's a missing flush TLB somewhere.


One interesting thing: the test for "need to reload something"
looks a bit differently for the ARM architecture in

if (!cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)) || prev != next) {

and they do something also for the
!CONFIG_SMP && !cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)
case. I don't know what exactly is semantics of mm_cpumask,
but the difference is suspicious.

> Do you have a reproducer you can share. That way, maybe we can all share
> the joy.

Unfortunately not and I have really tried :( If I get new ideas, I will
try again.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at