linux-kernel - Re: Processes spinning forever, apparently in lock_timer

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709211623190.16442@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:58:15 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Matthias Hensler <matthias@...se.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	richard kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Processes spinning forever, apparently in lock_timer_base()?

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> This sounds an awful lot like the same problem I reported with fsck
> hanging.  I believe that Hugh had a candidate patch for that, which was
> related to dirty tracking limits.  It seems that that patch tested, and
> acked by Peter.  All on lkml under:
> 
> 	2.6.23-rc6-mm1 -- mkfs stuck in 'D'

You may well be right.

My initial reaction was to point out that my patch was to a 
2.6.23-rc6-mm1 implementation detail, whereas this thread is
about a problem seen since 2.6.20 or perhaps earlier.

But once I look harder at it, I wonder what would have kept
2.6.18 to 2.6.23 safe from the same issue: per-cpu deltas from
the global vm stats too low to get synched back to global, yet
adding up to something which misleads balance_dirty_pages into
an indefinite loop e.g. total nr_writeback actually 0, but
appearing more than dirty_thresh in the global approximation.

Certainly my rc6-mm1 patch won't work here, and all it was doing
was apply some safety already added by Peter to one further case.

Looking at the 2.6.18-2.6.23 code, I'm uncertain what to try instead.
There is a refresh_vm_stats function which we could call (then retest
the break condition) just before resorting to congestion_wait.  But
the big NUMA people might get very upset with me calling that too
often: causing a thundering herd of bouncing cachelines which that
was all designed to avoid.  And it's not obvious to me what condition
to test for dirty_thresh "too low".

I believe Peter gave all this quite a lot of thought when he was
making the rc6-mm1 changes, and I'd rather defer to him for a
suggestion of what best to do in earlier releases.  Or maybe he'll
just point out how this couldn't have been a problem before.

Or there is is Richard's patch, which I haven't considered, but
Andrew was not quite satisfied with it - partly because he'd like
to understand how the situation could come about first, perhaps
we have now got an explanation.

(The original bug report was indeed on SMP, but I haven't seen
anyone say that's a necessary condition for the hang: it would
be if this is the issue.  And Richard writes at one point of the
system only responding to AltSysRq: that would be surprising for
this issue, though it's possible that a task in balance_dirty_pages
is holding an i_mutex that everybody else comes to need.)

Hugh
-
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/