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:	Thu, 4 Dec 2014 00:49:29 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:19:11PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>  > On Wed, 3 Dec 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>  > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > But it's always negative, which means HPET is always ahead of
>  > > > TSC. That excludes pretty much the clocksource watchdog starvation
>  > > > issue which results in TSC being ahead of HPET due to a HPET
>  > > > wraparound (which takes ~300s).
>  > > 
>  > > Still, I'd be more likely to trust the TSC than the HPET on modern
>  > > machines.. And DaveJ's machine isn't some old one.
>  > 
>  > Well, that does not explain the softlock watchdog which is solely
>  > relying on the TSC.
>  > 
>  > > Of course, there's always BIOS games. Can we read the TSC offset
>  > > register and check it being constant (modulo sleep events)?
>  > 
>  > The kernel does not touch it. Here is a untested hack to verify it on
>  > every local apic timer interrupt. Not nice, but simple :)
>  
>  > +			pr_err("TSC adjustment on cpu %d changed %llu -> %llu\n",
>  > +			       cpu,
>  > +			       (unsigned long long) __this_cpu_read(tsc_adjust),
>  > +			       (unsigned long long) adj);
> 
> I just got 
> 
> [ 1472.614433] Clocksource tsc unstable (delta = -26373048906 ns)
> 
> without any sign of the pr_err above.

Bah. Would have been too simple ....

Could you please run Ingos time-warp test on that machine for a while?

   http://people.redhat.com/mingo/time-warp-test/time-warp-test.c

Please change:

- #define TEST_CLOCK 0
+ #define TEST_CLOCK 1

I'll dig further into the time/clocksource whatever related changes
post 3.16

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/