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:	Sat, 13 Dec 2014 10:57:42 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

On Sat, 2014-12-13 at 09:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: 
> * Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 08:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > > Looking again at that patch (the commit message still doesn't strike
> > > me as wonderfully explanatory :^) makes me worry, though.
> > > 
> > > Is that
> > > 
> > >         if (rq->skip_clock_update-- > 0)
> > >                 return;
> > > 
> > > really right? If skip_clock_update was zero (normal), it now gets set
> > > to -1, which has its own specific meaning (see "force clock update"
> > > comment in kernel/sched/rt.c). Is that intentional? That seems insane.
> > 
> > Yeah, it was intentional.  Least lines.
> > 
> > > Or should it be
> > > 
> > >         if (rq->skip_clock_update > 0) {
> > >                 rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
> > >                 return;
> > >         }
> > > 
> > > or what? Maybe there was a reason the patch never got applied even to -tip.
> > 
> > Peterz was looking at corner case proofing the thing.  Saving those
> > cycles has been entirely too annoying.
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/8/295
> 
> Hm, so that discussion died with:
> 
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/8/343
> 
> Did you ever get around to trying Peter's patch?

I couldn't plug it into the production -ENOBOOT IO beasts from hell, but
did run it on my little desktop a bit.
> But ... I've yet to see rq_clock problems cause actual lockups. 
> That's the main problem we have with its (un)robustness and why 
> Peter created that rq_clock debug facility: bugs there cause 
> latencies but no easily actionable symptoms, which are much 
> harder to debug.

If watchdog gets credit for zillion disk detection time, it can end up
throttled for what is effectively forever.

-Mike

--
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/