linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc5-git6: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E58B06.8020905@frugalware.org>
Date:	Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:41:10 +0100
From:	Gabriel C <crazy@...galware.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
	andi-bz@...stfloor.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc5-git6: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Gabriel C wrote:
>>> With this one TSC is fine but now I get a warning on boot :
>> Good. It confirms my assumptions about the root cause.
>>
>>> [    0.041037] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [    0.041052] WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp_32.c:562 native_smp_call_function_mask+0x23/0x11e()
>> Grr. I'll work out a solution for that one.
> 
> Gabriel,
> 
> I'm happy to rack your nerves some more.

No worries :) 

> 
> After discussing the issue with Peter and Ingo the following solution
> seems to be the one which is the least intrusive. 
> 
> Can you please give it a test ride ?

Done , git head + Andi's patch + this version of your patch does work here.

Also time-warp-test is just fine and everything else seems to work.


> ---
>  include/linux/sched.h |    6 ++++++
>  kernel/sched.c        |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/timer.c        |   10 +++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1541,6 +1541,12 @@ static inline void idle_task_exit(void) 
>  
>  extern void sched_idle_next(void);
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> +extern void wake_up_idle_cpu(int cpu);
> +#else
> +static inline void wake_up_idle_cpu(int cpu) { }
> +#endif
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
>  extern unsigned int sysctl_sched_latency;
>  extern unsigned int sysctl_sched_min_granularity;
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -848,6 +848,48 @@ static inline void resched_task(struct t
>  	__resched_task(p, TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> +/*
> + * When add_timer_on() enqueues a timer into the timer wheel of an
> + * idle CPU then this timer might expire before the next timer event
> + * which is scheduled to wake up that CPU. In case of a completely
> + * idle system the next event might even be infinite time into the
> + * future. wake_up_idle_cpu() ensures that the CPU is woken up and
> + * leaves the inner idle loop so the newle added timer is taken into
> + * account when the CPU goes back to idle and evaluates the timer
> + * wheel for the next timer event.
> + */
> +void wake_up_idle_cpu(int cpu)
> +{
> +	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> +
> +	if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> +		return;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * This is safe, as this function is called with the timer
> +	 * wheel base lock of (cpu) held. When the CPU is on the way
> +	 * to idle and has not yet set rq->curr to idle then it will
> +	 * be serialized on the timer wheel base lock and take the new
> +	 * timer into account automatically.
> +	 */
> +	if (rq->curr != rq->idle)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We can set TIF_RESCHED on the idle task of the other CPU
> +	 * lockless. The worst case is that the other CPU runs the
> +	 * idle task through an additional NOOP schedule()
> +	 */
> +	set_tsk_thread_flag(rq->idle, TIF_NEED_RESCHED);
> +
> +	/* NEED_RESCHED must be visible before we test polling */
> +	smp_mb();
> +	if (!tsk_is_polling(rq->idle))
> +		smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_HRTICK
>  /*
>   * Use HR-timers to deliver accurate preemption points.
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/timer.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/timer.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -451,10 +451,18 @@ void add_timer_on(struct timer_list *tim
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&base->lock, flags);
>  	timer_set_base(timer, base);
>  	internal_add_timer(base, timer);
> +	/*
> +	 * Check whether the other CPU is idle and needs to be
> +	 * triggered to reevaluate the timer wheel when nohz is
> +	 * active. We are protected against the other CPU fiddling
> +	 * with the timer by holding the timer base lock. This also
> +	 * makes sure that a CPU on the way to idle can not evaluate
> +	 * the timer wheel.
> +	 */
> +	wake_up_idle_cpu(cpu);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->lock, flags);
>  }
>  
> -
>  /**
>   * mod_timer - modify a timer's timeout
>   * @timer: the timer to be modified
--
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/