linux-kernel - Re: watchdog: print stolen time increment at softlockup detection

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Jul 2013 23:32:40 -0300
From:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Karen Noel <knoel@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: watchdog: print stolen time increment at softlockup detection

On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > And why overcommitment is not a valid reason to generate a softlockup in
> > the first place ?
> 
> For the guest I don't believe it is.  It isn't the guest's fault it
> couldn't run processes.  A warning should be scheduled on the host that it
> couldn't run a process in a very long time.

An interesting viewpoint is this: it does not matter who is at fault,
whether the host or the guest. What matters is that an application in
the guest is being starved of the least amount of resources for proper
functioning (as specified by the watchdog threshold).

The responsability for verifying that the least amount of resources for
functioning of the guest application should not be entirely on the part
of the host.

--
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/