linux-kernel - Re: [BUG 2.6.25-rc3] scheduler/hotplug: some processes are dealocked when cpu is set to offline

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: <20080307091049.GA8827@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:40:49 +0530
From:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Yi Yang <yi.y.yang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG 2.6.25-rc3] scheduler/hotplug: some processes are
	dealocked when cpu is set to offline

On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 05:54:51AM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/06, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > +static void check_running_task(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long now)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs)
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > 
> > This function gets called only when t->xxx == 0,
> > so the if below doesn't mean much, does it? :)
> > 
> > > +	if (time_before(now, t->xxx + HZ * sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs)
> > > +		return;
> > .......
> >
> > > @@ -192,15 +214,17 @@ static void check_hung_uninterruptible_t
> > >  	if ((tainted & TAINT_DIE) || did_panic)
> > >  		return;
> > > 
> > > -	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > >  	do_each_thread(g, t) {
> > >  		if (!--max_count)
> > >  			goto unlock;
> > >  		if (t->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> > >  			check_hung_task(t, now);
> > > +		if (!t->xxx)
> > > +			check_running_task(t, jiff);
> 
> Of course, the check above should be
> 
> 		if (1t->xxx)
> 			check_running_task(t, jiff);
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >From another message,
> >
> > Me too. With your patch applied there were quite a few tasks in the
> > running state which didn't get the cpu for more than 120 seconds.
> 
> (I assume you fixed the patch before using it ;)
No! Conversely, I fixed the patch because I found this behaviour a bit
odd. Couldn't run the tests again as it was a tad bit late.

> 
> Just to be sure, there were no "bad ->cpu..." messages, yes?

Hopefully should be able to catch them now. If yes, it's a problem in
the way we do migration after cpu-hotplug as Yi suggested in an earlier
mail.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/6/437

This mail from akpm says the same thing.

> 
> Oleg.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
gautham
--
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/