linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

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, 5 Feb 2015 08:58:20 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 03:57:12PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
> > On 02/04/2015 05:53 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> The architecture-specific switch_mm() function can be called by offline
> >> CPUs, but includes event tracing, which cannot be legally carried out
> >> on offline CPUs.  This results in a lockdep-RCU splat.  This commit fixes
> >> this splat by omitting the tracing when the CPU is offline.
> > ...
> >>>> >> >                 load_cr3(next->pgd);
> >>>> >> > -               trace_tlb_flush(TLB_FLUSH_ON_TASK_SWITCH, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
> >>>> >> > +               if (cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))
> >>>> >> > +                       trace_tlb_flush(TLB_FLUSH_ON_TASK_SWITCH, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
> >
> > Is this, perhaps, something that we should be doing in the generic trace
> > code so that all of the trace users don't have to worry about it?  Also,
> > this patch will add overhead to the code when tracing is off.  It would
> > be best if we could manage to make the cpu_online() check only in the
> > cases where the tracepoint is on.
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> thanks for your feedback.
> 
> I have just seen that I again see the call-trace.

When you get well, could you please send that call trace?

> Maybe you can discuss with Paul and others or offer a proposal patch.

The other possibility is to have a CONFIG_ARCH_DYING_IDLE or some such
that allows this particular flavor of x86 to invoke the CPU_DYING_IDLE
from after the call to switch_mm().  Dave, does that make sense?

My guess would be that there should be a cpu_dying_idle_generic() invoked
from cpu_idle_loop(), and a cpu_dying_idle_native() invoked at the end
of idle_task_exit().  Or can I get away with just moving the current
rcu_notify_cpu() call from cpu_idle_loop() to the end of idle_task_exit()?

A quick look at the calls to idle_task_exit() makes this look plausible.
There are a number of calls to printk() and to complete() that need help,
but that is a pre-existing issue in any case, as both these code paths
have RCU readers that are having no effect on offline CPUs.

Dave, thoughts?

> I should really do something for my recovery (influenza).
> Instead of laying lazy in my bed I thought to update my Linux kernels
> and graphics driver stack which made me happy.

Get well, being sick is bad for your health!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Regards,
> - Sedat -
> 

--
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/