linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: system lockup with 2.6.29 on Cavium/Octeon

To: gerg@snapgear.com
Subject: Re: system lockup with 2.6.29 on Cavium/Octeon
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 20:53:21 +0900 (JST)
Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <4A15FD84.8050505@snapgear.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20090520142604.GA29677@linux-mips.org> <20090521.235020.173372074.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <4A15FD84.8050505@snapgear.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:19:00 +1000, Greg Ungerer <gerg@snapgear.com> wrote:
> > The wrong combination comes from lazy vunmapping which was introduced
> > in 2.6.28 cycle.  Maybe we can add new API (non-lazy version of
> > vfree()) to vmalloc.c to implement module_free(), but I suppose
> > fallbacking to local_flush_tlb_all() in local_flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> > is enough().
> 
> Is there any performance impact on falling back to that?
> 
> The flushing due to lazy vunmapping didn't seem to happen
> often in the tests I was running.

I think the wrong combination can happen only when some modules were
unloaded, so performance impact would not be serious even if exists.

---
Atsushi Nemoto

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>