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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080422.015931.70144614.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mingo@...e.hu
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Soft lockup regression from today's sched.git merge.


The following commit:

commit 27ec4407790d075c325e1f4da0a19c56953cce23
Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date:   Thu Feb 28 21:00:21 2008 +0100

    sched: make cpu_clock() globally synchronous
    
    Alexey Zaytsev reported (and bisected) that the introduction of
    cpu_clock() in printk made the timestamps jump back and forth.
    
    Make cpu_clock() more reliable while still keeping it fast when it's
    called frequently.
    
    Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>

causes watchdog triggers when a cpu exits NOHZ state when it has been
there for >= the soft lockup threshold, for example here are some
messages from a 128 cpu Niagara2 box:

[  168.106406] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 128s! [dd:3239]
[  168.989592] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#21 stuck for 86s! [swapper:0]
[  168.999587] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#29 stuck for 91s! [make:4511]
[  168.999615] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 85s! [swapper:0]
[  169.020514] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#37 stuck for 91s! [swapper:0]
[  169.020514] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#45 stuck for 91s! [sh:4515]
[  169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#69 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#77 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.020515] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#61 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#85 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#101 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#109 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.112554] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#117 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.171483] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#40 stuck for 80s! [dd:3239]
[  169.331483] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#13 stuck for 86s! [swapper:0]
[  169.351500] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#43 stuck for 101s! [dd:3239]
[  169.531482] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#9 stuck for 129s! [mkdir:4565]
[  169.595754] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#20 stuck for 93s! [swapper:0]
[  169.626787] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#52 stuck for 93s! [swapper:0]
[  169.626787] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#84 stuck for 92s! [swapper:0]
[  169.636812] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#116 stuck for 94s! [swapper:0]

It's simple enough to trigger this by doing a 10 minute sleep after a
fresh bootup then starting a parallel kernel build.

I suspect this might be reintroducing a problem we've had and fixed
before, see the thread:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119546414004065&w=2

Please have a look, thank you.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ