linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Cpu-hotplug: Using the Process Freezer (try2)

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]

Message-ID: <20070403120104.GB29308@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:31:04 +0530
From:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ibm.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vatsa@...ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	dino@...ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Cpu-hotplug: Using the Process Freezer (try2)

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 08:16:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> i'm wondering about how TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks are handled by the 
> freezer: are they assumed frozen immediately, or do we wait until they 
> notice their PF_FREEZING and go into try_to_freeze()? I'd expect 
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE to be the largest source of latency. (and hence be 
> the primary source for freezing 'failures')

Ok, we might be in some luck. I panic()ed on freezer fail and checked
the stacktrace of the unfrozen tasks. The stacktrace of each one looks
like:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PID: 7697   TASK: cc354a70  CPU: 7   COMMAND: "make"
#0 [cc37fe50] schedule at c0431752
#1 [cc37fec4] wait_for_completion at c04318d0
#2 [cc37ff24] do_fork at c01249a6
#3 [cc37ff94] sys_vfork at c0103c1f
#4 [cc37ffb4] system_call at c0104d8d
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rafael had sent out a patch to fix the vfork race, which can be found at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/1/212

However, the hunk

@@ -1393,7 +1394,9 @@ long do_fork(unsigned long clone_flags,
		tracehook_report_clone_complete(clone_flags, nr, p);

		if (clone_flags & CLONE_VFORK) {
+			freezer_do_not_count();
			wait_for_completion(&vfork);
+			freezer_count();
			tracehook_report_vfork_done(p, nr);
		}
	} else {

Seems to be missing in the latest -mm's.

Rafael / Andrew, 
	Any reasons for leaving this hunk out?

I will rerun my tests with this hunk applied and report back.

> 
> 	Ingo

Thanks and Regards
gautham.
-- 
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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/