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]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1305302152410.2905@ionos>
Date:	Thu, 30 May 2013 22:05:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: WARNING: at /home/konrad/linux-linus/kernel/time/tick-sched.c:935
 tick_nohz_idle_exit+0x195/0x1b0() on v3.10-rc3

On Thu, 30 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> [   40.085841] WARNING: at /home/konrad/linux-linus/kernel/time/tick-sched.c:935 tick_nohz_idle_exit+0x195/0x1b0()
> 
> which I presume is b/c the code does not expect to be run _after_ it has
> offlined. However, under the PV code, the mechanism is that that a CPU
> that has been offlined, can resume (if it is onlined). If you look at:
> 
> 445 static void __cpuinit xen_play_dead(void) /* used only with HOTPLUG_CPU */      
> 446 {                                                                               
> 447         play_dead_common();                                                     
> 448         HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_down, smp_processor_id(), NULL);              
> 449         cpu_bringup();                                                          
> 450 }                               
> 
> That is called right after the CPU is put to sleep and the hypercall 
> VCPUOP_down blocks - until the CPU is brough back up. And which point
> we end up calling cpu_bringup - which sets up the clockevets, timers, etc.
>
> I am wondering if part of this is that the ts->inidle gets reset
> b/c we end up resetting all the timers but then when xen_play_dead
> exits, it ends up right back in the cpu_idle_loop() loop - and we
> call tick_nohz_idle_exit().
> 
> Thoughts?

cpu_dead() is definitely not expected to return after the cpu has been
declared dead. I should have put a big fat warning into the generic
idle loop for this :)

The reason why you get that warning only now is commit 4b0c0f294
(tick: Cleanup NOHZ per cpu data on cpu down), which is btw. targeted
for stable as well.

We can't revert the above commit as it fixes a long standing
nastiness, so for now until I come around to make the idle loop return
on cpu down you probably need to call tick_nohz_idle_enter() before
returning from play_dead().

Thanks,

	tglx



    

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ