linux-kernel - Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

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 2014 07:37:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> That's *especially* true if it turns out that the 3.17 problem 
> you saw was actually a perf bug that has already been fixed and 
> is in stable. We've been looking at kernel/smp.c changes, and 
> looking for x86 IPI or APIC changes, and found some harmlessly 
> (at least on x86) suspicious code and this exercise might be 
> worth it for that reason, but what if it's really just a 
> scheduler regression.
> 
> There's been a *lot* more scheduler changes since 3.17 than the 
> small things we've looked at for x86 entry or IPI handling. And 
> the scheduler changes have been about things like overloaded 
> scheduling groups etc, and I could easily imaging that some bug 
> *there* ends up causing the watchdog process not to schedule.
> 
> Hmm? Scheduler people?

Hm, that's a possibility, yes.

The watchdog threads are pretty simple beasts though, using 
SCHED_FIFO:

 kernel/watchdog.c:      watchdog_set_prio(SCHED_FIFO, MAX_RT_PRIO - 1);

which is typically only affected by less than 10% of scheduler 
changes - but it's entirely possible still.

It might make sense to disable the softlockup detector altogether 
and just see whether trinity finishes/wedges, whether a login 
over the console is still possible - etc.

The softlockup messages in themselves are only analytical, unless 
CONFIG_BOOTPARAM_SOFTLOCKUP_PANIC_VALUE=1 is used.

Interesting bug.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/