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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:12:04 +0200 From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] softlockup: fix watchdog task wakeup frequency Hi Ingo, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes: > * Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes: >> >> > * Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote: >> > >> >> > + /* >> >> > + * Wake up the high-prio watchdog task twice per >> >> > + * threshold timespan. >> >> > + */ >> >> > + if (now > touch_timestamp + softlockup_thresh/2) >> >> > wake_up_process(per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)); >> >> >> >> That defeats patch 1/3 and I think it can be dropped (#1). >> > >> > applied this updated patch to tip/core/softlockup. #3 didnt apply - >> > could you send a delta patch against tip/core/softlockup please? You can >> > pick it up via: >> > >> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README >> > >> > do: >> > >> > git-checkout -b core/softlockup tip/core/softlockup >> > >> > to check it out. >> >> Uhm, I see this patch is already in. Misunderstanding or did you fix >> it up yourself? > > i applied and tested everything that would apply (modulo trivial > conflict resolution) - but not all of your patches applied so if there's > still anything missing please send a delta patch against this branch. > (or against tip/master, which too has all these changes included) #1 is crap, #3 is in the tree and here is #2 against tip/core/softlockup: -- From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> Subject: softlockup: sanitize timestamp comparison The print_timestamp can never be bigger than the touch_timestamp, at maximum it can be equal. And if it is, the second check for touch_timestamp + 1 bigger print_timestamp is always true, too. The check for equality is sufficient as we proceed in one-second-steps and are at least one second away from the last print-out if we have another timestamp. Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> --- kernel/softlockup.c | 5 +---- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/softlockup.c b/kernel/softlockup.c index d53ab70..7bd8d1a 100644 --- a/kernel/softlockup.c +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c @@ -116,11 +116,8 @@ void softlockup_tick(void) print_timestamp = per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu); /* report at most once a second */ - if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp && - print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) || - did_panic) { + if (print_timestamp == touch_timestamp || did_panic) return; - } /* do not print during early bootup: */ if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)) { -- 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