netdev - Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup

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, 27 Mar 2008 17:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Matheos.Worku@....COM
Cc:	jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, jarkao2@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#X

From: Matheos Worku <Matheos.Worku@....COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:45:06 -0700

> Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >   
> >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 01:26:00PM -0700, Matheos Worku wrote:
> >> ...
> >>     
> >>> nsn57-110 login: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 11s! ... Call
> >>> Trace: [<ffffffff803ef5f6>] __skb_clone+0x24/0xdc
> >>> [<ffffffff803f152e>] skb_realloc_headroom+0x30/0x63
> >>> [<ffffffff882edd40>] :niu:niu_start_xmit+0x114/0x5af
> >>> [<ffffffff80221995>] gart_map_single+0x0/0x70
> >>> [<ffffffff803f5e2b>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x1d2/0x246 ...
> >>>       
> >> Maybe I'm wrong with this again, but I wonder about this
> >> gart_map_single on almost all traces, and probably not supposed to be
> >> seen here. Did you try with some memory re-config/debugging?
> >>     
> >
> > I have some more examples of this but with the ixgbe driver.  We are
> > running heavy bidirectional stress with multiple rx (non-napi, yeah I
> > know) interrupts by default (and userspace irqbalance is probably on,
> > I'll have the lab try it without)
> >   
> 
> I have seen the lockup on kernels 2.6.18 and newer mostly on TX traffic. 
> I have seen it on another 10G driver (off the tree niu driver sibling, 
> nxge).  The nxge driver doesn't use any TX interrupts and I have seen it 
> with UDP TX, irqbalance disabled, with no irq activity at all.  some 
> example traces included.

Interesting.

Are you running uperf in a way such that there are multiple
processors doing TX's in parallel?  That might be a clue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html