linux-kernel - Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)

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: <b647ffbd0801280056p71d939d4j882d640185c40d94@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:56:04 +0100
From:	"Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Steven Rostedt" <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)

On 28/01/2008, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay to the suspend and hibernation
> > > code paths (probably related to the disabling of nonboot CPUs), which
> > > is !@...^&*() annoying.
> > >
> > > It's 100% reproducible on my HP nx6325 and bisection idendified the
> > > following commit as the first bad one:
> > >
> > > commit 764a9d6fe4b52995c8aba277e3634385699354f4
> > > Author: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
> > > Date:   Fri Jan 25 21:08:04 2008 +0100
> > >
> > >     sched: track highest prio task queued
> >
> > hm, this patch is a NOP, so it's weird that it has an effect.
> >
> > Do you have serial logging enabled perhaps? If the following WARN_ON()
> > triggers:
> >
> > +               WARN_ON(p->prio < rq->rt.highest_prio);
> >
> > then perhaps that can cause a 5-10 seconds delay. (that's how much time
> > it takes to printk a warning on the slowest serial settings)
> >
> > but if you use suspend, then any such printks would be preserved in the
> > dmesg, right? If the WARN_ON() triggers, and if you remove it, do things
> > get faster?
>
> No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
>
> > this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
> > absolutely sure about the precise identity of the patch?
>
> Actually, not quite.  That's why I have verified it and found that another
> patch is really responsible for the issue, namely:
>
> commit 82a1fcb90287052aabfa235e7ffc693ea003fe69
> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date:   Fri Jan 25 21:08:02 2008 +0100
>
>     softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
>
> Reverting this commit (it reverts with some minor modifications) fixes the
> problem for me.

What if you use the same kernel that triggers a problem and just disable
this new 'softlockup' functionality:

echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs

does the problem disapear?

TIA,

>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>


-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
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/