linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] scheduler doesn't balance thread to idle cpu for 3 seconds

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, 29 Jan 2016 11:15:22 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Cc:	alex shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, guz fnst <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	mingo@...hat.com, jolsa@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] scheduler doesn't balance thread to idle cpu for 3 seconds

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:43:13PM -0500, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > How long should I have to wait for a fail?
> 
> It's about 1000-2000 iterations for me, which I think you covered
> by now in those 2 hours.

So I've been running:

  while ! ./pthread_cond_wait_1 ; do sleep 1; done

overnight on the machine, and have yet to hit a wobbly -- that is, its
still running.

Also note that I don't think failing this test is a bug per se.
Undesirable maybe, but within spec, since SIGALRM is process wide, so it
being delivered to the SCHED_OTHER task is accepted, and SCHED_OTHER has
no timeliness guarantees.

That said; if I could reliably reproduce I'd have a go at fixing this, I
suspect there's a 'fun' problem at the bottom of this.