linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes to use function calls [POST 2]

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: <20080819012816.GA7897@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:28:16 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes
	to use function calls [POST 2]


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> nice stuff!
> 
> I suspect the extra cost might be worth it for two reasons: 1) we 
> could optimize the cross-call implementation further 2) on systems 
> where TLB flushes actually matter, the ability to overlap multiple TLB 
> flushes to the same single CPU might improve workloads.
> 
> FYI, i've created a new -tip topic for your patches, tip/x86/tlbflush. 
> It's based on tip/irq/sparseirq (there are a good deal of dependencies 
> with that topic).

i threw it into -tip testing for a while - triggered the lockdep warning 
on 64-bit below.

	Ingo

------------>
checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]: passed.

=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.27-rc3-tip #1
---------------------------------------------
swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&call_function_queues[i].lock){....}, at: [<ffffffff8026cbba>] ipi_call_lock_irq+0x25/0x2e

but task is already holding lock:
 (&call_function_queues[i].lock){....}, at: [<ffffffff8026cbba>] ipi_call_lock_irq+0x25/0x2e

other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by swapper/0:
 #0:  (&call_function_queues[i].lock){....}, at: [<ffffffff8026cbba>] ipi_call_lock_irq+0x25/0x2e

stack backtrace:
Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.27-rc3-tip #1
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff802665c2>] validate_chain+0x53e/0xc26
 [<ffffffff80263814>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x21/0xa4
 [<ffffffff802638a4>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf
 [<ffffffff802673d6>] __lock_acquire+0x72c/0x795
 [<ffffffff802674cc>] lock_acquire+0x8d/0xba
 [<ffffffff8026cbba>] ? ipi_call_lock_irq+0x25/0x2e
 [<ffffffff808aa83c>] _spin_lock_irq+0x44/0x74
 [<ffffffff8026cbba>] ? ipi_call_lock_irq+0x25/0x2e
 [<ffffffff8026cbba>] ipi_call_lock_irq+0x25/0x2e
 [<ffffffff808a4acf>] start_secondary+0x127/0x18e
Brought up 2 CPUs
Total of 2 processors activated (11733.31 BogoMIPS).
--
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/