linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60

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: <20070621200941.GB22303@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:09:41 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, chris@...ee.ca,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> If somebody can actually come up with a sequence where we have 
> spinlock starvation, and it's not about an example of bad locking, and 
> nobody really can come up with any other way to fix it, we may 
> eventually have to add the notion of "fair spinlocks".

there was one bad case i can remember: the spinlock debugging code had a 
trylock open-coded loop and on certain Opterons CPUs were starving each 
other. This used to trigger with the ->tree_lock rwlock i think, on 
heavy MM loads. The starvation got so bad that the NMI watchdog started 
triggering ...

interestingly, this only triggered for certain rwlocks. Thus we, after a 
few failed attempts to pacify this open-coded loop, currently have that 
code disabled in lib/spinlock_debug.c:

 #if 0           /* This can cause lockups */
 static void __write_lock_debug(rwlock_t *lock)
 {
         u64 i;
         u64 loops = loops_per_jiffy * HZ;
         int print_once = 1;

         for (;;) {
                 for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
                         if (__raw_write_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
                                 return;
                         __delay(1);
                 }

the weird thing is that we still have the _very same_ construct in 
__spin_lock_debug():

                 for (i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
                         if (__raw_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
                                 return;
                         __delay(1);
                 }

if there are any problems with this then people are not complaining loud 
enough :-)

note that because this is a trylock based loop, the acquire+release 
sequence problem should not apply to this problem.

	Ingo
-
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/