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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:58:24 +0800 From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: NOHZ: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:123 native_smp_send_reschedule, round 2 On 05/20/2013 02:47 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:23:37PM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 05/20/2013 12:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:16:33AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>>> I suppose the reason is that the cpu we passed to >>>> mod_delayed_work_on() has a chance to become offline before we >>>> disabled irq, what about check it before send resched ipi? like: >>> >>> I think this is only addressing the symptoms - what we should be doing >>> instead is asking ourselves why are we even scheduling work on a cpu if >>> the machine goes offline? >>> >>> I don't know though who should be responsible for killing all that >>> work - the workqueue itself or the guy who created it, i.e. cpufreq >>> governor... >> >> So there are two questions here: >> 1. Is gov_queue_work() want to queue the work on offline cpu? >> 2. Is mod_delayed_work_on() allow offline cpu? >> >> I guess both should be false? > > Well, if we don't allow queueing work on a cpu which goes offline, i.e. > #2, the problem should be solved. I've take a look at the usage of queue_delayed_work_on() and mod_delayed_work_on(), mostly passed this_cpu, or those in online mask, I think offline cpu is not by designed. Besides, the cpu gov_queue_work() is using 'policy->cpus' which seems to be updated during UP DOWN notify, I think they are supposed to be online. But we need expert in cpufreq to confirm all these... Regards, Michael Wang > > Tejun? > > Here are the splats: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136879901425951 > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists