linux-kernel - Re: regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:26:03 -0800
From:	Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
To:	Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	roland@...hat.com, adobriyan@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression introduced by - timers: fix itimer/many thread hang

On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 19:42 +0100, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> This is just not true. I've seen a very real example of a lockup with a very 
> sane number of threads (one per CPU), but on a very large machine (1024 CPUs 
> IIRC). The application set per-process CPU profiling with an interval of 1 
> tick, which translates to 1024 timers firing off with each tick...
> 
> Well, yes, that was broken, too, but that's the way one quite popular FORTRAN 
> compiler works...

Petr, have you tried the fix in the latest kernel?  Does it help?  I'm
intensely curious to know how it affected your runs.
-- 
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Google, Inc.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/