| 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: <463889B5.7040204@rtr.ca>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:53:09 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.6.21: Kernel won't boot with either/both of CONFIG_NO_HZ,
CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS
re: [PATCH] highres/dyntick: prevent xtime lock contention
|mark> I have a new notebook (Dell Inspiron 9400) with Core2-Duo T7400 @ 2.1Ghz.
|mark> When either/both of CONFIG_NO_HZ, CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS is used,
|mark> the 2.6.21 kernel hangs on startup just after printing one/both of these:
|mark>
|mark> kernel: switched to high resolution mode on cpu 1
|mark> kernel: switched to high resolution mode on cpu 0
|
|thomas> Can you apply this patch please:
|thomas> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/190
|thomas> It somehow did not make it into 2.6.21.
|
|andrew> Alas, poor me. I ain't going to merge a contention-reduction patch when
|andrew> we're at -rc6. If a patch fixes a bug, please tell me!
Okay, patch applied to 2.6.21.1, and I'm typing this email
from thunderbird while running the patched kernel (woo-hoo!).
So I guess it boots, works, and we need this patch in 2.6.21.2 & 2.6.22.
>Subject [PATCH] highres/dyntick: prevent xtime lock contention
>From Thomas Gleixner <>
>Date Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:05:57 +0200
>Digg This
>
>While the !highres/!dyntick code assigns the duty of the do_timer() call
>to one specific CPU, this was dropped in the highres/dyntick part during
>development.
>
>Steven Rostedt discovered the xtime lock contention on highres/dyntick
>due to several CPUs trying to update jiffies.
>
>Add the single CPU assignment back. In the dyntick case this needs to
>be handled carefully, as the CPU which has the do_timer() duty must drop
>the assignement and let it be grabbed by another CPU, which is active.
>Otherwise the do_timer() calls would not happen during the long sleep.
>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Acked-by: Mark Lord <mlord@...ox.com>
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-common.c b/kernel/time/tick-common.c index bfda3f7..a96ec9a 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-common.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-common.c
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct tick_device, tick_cpu_device);
*/
ktime_t tick_next_period;
ktime_t tick_period;
-static int tick_do_timer_cpu = -1;
+int tick_do_timer_cpu __read_mostly = -1;
DEFINE_SPINLOCK(tick_device_lock);
/*
@@ -295,6 +295,12 @@ static void tick_shutdown(unsigned int *cpup)
clockevents_exchange_device(dev, NULL);
td->evtdev = NULL;
}
+ /* Transfer the do_timer job away from this cpu */
+ if (*cpup == tick_do_timer_cpu) {
+ int cpu = first_cpu(cpu_online_map);
+
+ tick_do_timer_cpu = (cpu != NR_CPUS) ? cpu : -1;
+ }
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tick_device_lock, flags);
}
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-internal.h b/kernel/time/tick-internal.h index c9d203b..5645e6a 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-internal.h
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-internal.h
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct tick_device, tick_cpu_device);
extern spinlock_t tick_device_lock;
extern ktime_t tick_next_period;
extern ktime_t tick_period;
+extern int tick_do_timer_cpu __read_mostly;
extern void tick_setup_periodic(struct clock_event_device *dev, int broadcast);
extern void tick_handle_periodic(struct clock_event_device *dev);
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c index 51556b9..3a8e524 100644
--- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
@@ -221,6 +221,18 @@ void tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(void)
ts->tick_stopped = 1;
ts->idle_jiffies = last_jiffies;
}
+
+ /*
+ * If this cpu is the one which updates jiffies, then
+ * give up the assignment and let it be taken by the
+ * cpu which runs the tick timer next, which might be
+ * this cpu as well. If we don't drop this here the
+ * jiffies might be stale and do_timer() never
+ * invoked.
+ */
+ if (cpu == tick_do_timer_cpu)
+ tick_do_timer_cpu = -1;
+
/*
* calculate the expiry time for the next timer wheel
* timer
@@ -338,12 +350,24 @@ static void tick_nohz_handler(struct clock_event_device *dev)
{
struct tick_sched *ts = &__get_cpu_var(tick_cpu_sched);
struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
+ int cpu = smp_processor_id();
ktime_t now = ktime_get();
dev->next_event.tv64 = KTIME_MAX;
+ /*
+ * Check if the do_timer duty was dropped. We don't care about
+ * concurrency: This happens only when the cpu in charge went
+ * into a long sleep. If two cpus happen to assign themself to
+ * this duty, then the jiffies update is still serialized by
+ * xtime_lock.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(tick_do_timer_cpu == -1))
+ tick_do_timer_cpu = cpu;
+
/* Check, if the jiffies need an update */
- tick_do_update_jiffies64(now);
+ if (tick_do_timer_cpu == cpu)
+ tick_do_update_jiffies64(now);
/*
* When we are idle and the tick is stopped, we have to touch
@@ -431,9 +455,23 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart tick_sched_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
struct hrtimer_cpu_base *base = timer->base->cpu_base;
struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
ktime_t now = ktime_get();
+ int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
+ /*
+ * Check if the do_timer duty was dropped. We don't care about
+ * concurrency: This happens only when the cpu in charge went
+ * into a long sleep. If two cpus happen to assign themself to
+ * this duty, then the jiffies update is still serialized by
+ * xtime_lock.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(tick_do_timer_cpu == -1))
+ tick_do_timer_cpu = cpu;
+#endif
/* Check, if the jiffies need an update */
- tick_do_update_jiffies64(now);
+ if (tick_do_timer_cpu == cpu)
+ tick_do_update_jiffies64(now);
/*
* Do not call, when we are not in irq context and have
-
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