| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200703240845.30484.kernel@kolivas.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:45:30 +1100
From: Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steve Fox <drfickle@...ibm.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1
On Friday 23 March 2007 23:28, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Con Kolivas wrote:
> >> On Friday 23 March 2007 05:17, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> Ok, I have yet a third x86_64 machine is is blowing up with the latest
> >>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes+rsdl-0.32 but working with
> >>> 2.6.21-rc4-mm1+hotfixes-RSDL. I have results on various hotfix levels
> >>> so I have just fired off a set of tests across the affected machines on
> >>> that latest hotfix stack plus the RSDL backout and the results should
> >>> be in in the next hour or two.
> >>>
> >>> I think there is a strong correlation between RSDL and these hangs.
> >>> Any suggestions as to the next step.
> >>
> >> Found a nasty in requeue_task
> >> + if (list_empty(old_array->queue + old_prio))
> >> + __clear_bit(old_prio, p->array->prio_bitmap);
> >>
> >> see anything wrong there? I do :P
> >>
> >> I'll queue that up with the other changes pending and hopefully that
> >> will fix your bug.
> >
> > Tests queued with your rdsl-0.33 patch (I am assuming its in there).
> > Will let you know how it looks.
>
> Hmmm, this is good for the original machine (as was 0.32) but not for
> either of the other two. I am seeing panics as below on those two.
This machine seems most sensitive to it (first column):
elm3b6
amd64
newisys
4cpu
config: amd64
Can you throw this debugging patch at it please? The console output might be
very helpful. On top of sched-rsdl-0.33 thanks!
---
kernel/sched.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc4-mm1/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.21-rc4-mm1.orig/kernel/sched.c 2007-03-24 08:32:19.000000000 +1100
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc4-mm1/kernel/sched.c 2007-03-24 08:42:04.000000000 +1100
@@ -659,6 +659,25 @@ static inline void set_task_entitlement(
p->time_slice = p->quota;
}
+static int debug_rqbitmap(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ struct list_head *queue;
+ int idx = 0, error = 0;
+ struct prio_array *array = rq->active;
+
+ for (idx = 0; idx < MAX_PRIO; idx++) {
+ queue = array->queue + idx;
+ if (!list_empty(queue)) {
+ if (!test_bit(idx, rq->dyn_bitmap)) {
+ __set_bit(idx, rq->dyn_bitmap);
+ error = 1;
+ printk(KERN_ERR "MISSING DYNAMIC BIT %d\n", idx);
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ return error;
+}
+
/*
* There is no specific hard accounting. The dynamic bits can have
* false positives. rt_tasks can only be on the active queue.
@@ -679,6 +698,7 @@ static void dequeue_task(struct task_str
list_del_init(&p->run_list);
if (list_empty(p->array->queue + p->prio))
__clear_bit(p->prio, p->array->prio_bitmap);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
/*
@@ -797,12 +817,14 @@ static void enqueue_task(struct task_str
{
__enqueue_task(p, rq);
list_add_tail(&p->run_list, p->array->queue + p->prio);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
static inline void enqueue_task_head(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
{
__enqueue_task(p, rq);
list_add(&p->run_list, p->array->queue + p->prio);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
/*
@@ -820,6 +842,7 @@ static void requeue_task(struct task_str
__clear_bit(old_prio, old_array->prio_bitmap);
set_dynamic_bit(p, rq);
}
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
/*
@@ -906,6 +929,7 @@ static inline void __activate_task(struc
{
enqueue_task(p, rq);
inc_nr_running(p, rq);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
/*
@@ -1006,6 +1030,7 @@ static void deactivate_task(struct task_
{
dec_nr_running(p, rq);
dequeue_task(p, rq);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
/*
@@ -1718,9 +1743,11 @@ void fastcall wake_up_new_task(struct ta
* Parent and child are on different CPUs, now get the
* parent runqueue to update the parent's ->flags:
*/
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
this_rq = task_rq_lock(current, &flags);
}
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(this_rq));
task_rq_unlock(this_rq, &flags);
}
@@ -3357,6 +3384,7 @@ static inline void major_prio_rotation(s
rq->dyn_bitmap = rq->active->prio_bitmap;
rq->best_static_prio = MAX_PRIO - 1;
rq->prio_rotation++;
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
/*
@@ -3399,6 +3427,8 @@ static inline void rotate_runqueue_prior
}
memset(rq->prio_quota, 0, ARRAY_SIZE(rq->prio_quota));
major_prio_rotation(rq);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
+
} else {
/* Minor rotation */
new_prio_level = rq->prio_level + 1;
@@ -3409,6 +3439,7 @@ static inline void rotate_runqueue_prior
__set_bit(new_prio_level, rq->dyn_bitmap);
}
rq_quota(rq, rq->prio_level) = 0;
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
}
rq->prio_level = new_prio_level;
/*
@@ -3431,6 +3462,10 @@ static void task_running_tick(struct rq
return;
spin_lock(&rq->lock);
+ if (!p->time_slice) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "NO TIME_SLICE IN TRT \n");
+ p->time_slice++;
+ }
/*
* Accounting is performed by both the task and the runqueue. This
* allows frequently sleeping tasks to get their proper quota of
@@ -3460,6 +3495,7 @@ static void task_running_tick(struct rq
set_tsk_need_resched(p);
}
out_unlock:
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
}
@@ -3479,6 +3515,7 @@ void scheduler_tick(void)
if (!idle_at_tick)
task_running_tick(rq, p, 1);
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
update_load(rq);
rq->idle_at_tick = idle_at_tick;
@@ -3548,6 +3585,7 @@ static inline struct task_struct *next_d
struct prio_array *array = rq->active;
int expirations = 0;
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
retry:
if (idx >= MAX_PRIO) {
BUG_ON(++expirations > 1);
@@ -3601,6 +3639,7 @@ retry:
if (next->static_prio < rq->best_static_prio &&
next->policy != SCHED_BATCH)
rq->best_static_prio = next->static_prio;
+ WARN_ON(debug_rqbitmap(rq));
return next;
}
--
-ck
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists