linux-kernel - Re: cpu load balancing problem on smp

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200702091612.13426.donner@dbd-breitband.de>
Date:	Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:12:13 +0100
From:	Marc Donner <donner@...-breitband.de>
To:	David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpu load balancing problem on smp

On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:42, you wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Marc Donner wrote:
> >> 501:     215717     209388     209430     202514   PCI-MSI-edge     
> >> eth10 502:        927       1019       1053        888   PCI-MSI-edge   
> >>   eth11
> >
> > this is odd, this is not an irq distribution that irqbalance should give
> > you 1
> >
> >> NMI:        451         39         42         46
> >> LOC:     170899     170864     170846     170788
> >> ERR:          0
> >>
> >> top output:
> >>
> >> top - 01:45:32 up 16 min,  2 users,  load average: 1.04, 0.92, 0.50
> >> Tasks:  81 total,   3 running,  78 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> >> Cpu0  :  0.0% us,  0.0% sy,  0.0% ni,  0.0% id,  0.0% wa,  0.0% hi,
> >> 100.0% si
> >
> > and this doesn't match the irq output...
> > sounds as if something has a real bug; can you send an lsmod ? maybe some
> > driver keeps doing si's
>
> since this only happens when he adds more iptables rules, is it possible
> that there sis some locking, or otherdata structure access that's
> serializing things under load?
>
> Marc, since you don't use modules, send your .config.
>
> David Lang

i've inserted some more iptables rules, and got 'softlockup detected' 
messages.

BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!

Call Trace:
 <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8023fbdf>] softlockup_tick+0xda/0xec
 [<ffffffff80229ba5>] update_process_times+0x42/0x68
 [<ffffffff8021421e>] smp_local_timer_interrupt+0x32/0x55
 [<ffffffff804f162a>] ip_rcv+0x0/0x48e
 [<ffffffff8021484b>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x4f/0x67
 [<ffffffff8020a206>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x66/0x70
 [<ffffffff804f162a>] ip_rcv+0x0/0x48e
 [<ffffffff8051bf4e>] ipt_do_table+0x2cd/0x315
 [<ffffffff804eb445>] nf_iterate+0x3f/0x7b
 [<ffffffff804f2aa0>] ip_forward_finish+0x0/0x3e
 [<ffffffff804eb4e0>] nf_hook_slow+0x5f/0xca
 [<ffffffff804f2aa0>] ip_forward_finish+0x0/0x3e
 [<ffffffff804f2c4c>] ip_forward+0x16e/0x212
 [<ffffffff804f1a71>] ip_rcv+0x447/0x48e
 [<ffffffff803de54c>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x41e/0x4ea
 [<ffffffff803e1dea>] e1000_clean+0x2f7/0x4b0
 [<ffffffff8021bf72>] task_rq_lock+0x3d/0x6f
 [<ffffffff804dcb1a>] net_rx_action+0x78/0x14a
 [<ffffffff802268b0>] __do_softirq+0x56/0xd3
 [<ffffffff80226699>] ksoftirqd+0x0/0x8f
 [<ffffffff8020a75c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x28
 [<ffffffff8020c20a>] do_softirq+0x2c/0x7d
 [<ffffffff80214850>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x54/0x67
 [<ffffffff8020a206>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x66/0x70
 <EOI>  [<ffffffff8020c259>] do_softirq+0x7b/0x7d
 [<ffffffff802266e8>] ksoftirqd+0x4f/0x8f
 [<ffffffff8023312a>] kthread+0xcb/0xf5
 [<ffffffff8020a3e8>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
 [<ffffffff8023305f>] kthread+0x0/0xf5
 [<ffffffff8020a3de>] child_rip+0x0/0x12


Marc

View attachment "x.txt" of type "text/plain" (22128 bytes)