linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: increase clock min delta threshold while interrupt hanging

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: <20081222151723.GA7927@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:17:23 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: increase clock min delta threshold while
	interrupt hanging

[Frederic Weisbecker - Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 02:24:48AM +0100]
| Impact: avoid hanging on slow systems
| 
| While using the function graph tracer on a virtualized system, the hrtimer_interrupt
| can hang the system on an infinite loop.
| This can be caused on several situation where something intrusive is slowing the
| system (ie: tracing) and the next clock events to program are always before the current
| time.
| This patch implements a reasonable compromise. If such a situation is detected, we share
| the CPUs time in 1/4 to process the hrtimer interrupts. This is enough to let the system
| running without serious starvation.
| 
| It has been successfully tested under VirtualBox with 1000 HZ and 100 HZ with function graph
| tracer launched. On both cases, the clock events were increased until about 25 ms periodic ticks,
| which means 40 HZ.
| 
| Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
| Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
| ---
|  kernel/hrtimer.c |   30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
|  1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
| 
| diff --git a/kernel/hrtimer.c b/kernel/hrtimer.c
| index bda9cb9..02f2477 100644
| --- a/kernel/hrtimer.c
| +++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c
| @@ -1171,6 +1171,29 @@ static void __run_hrtimer(struct hrtimer *timer)
|  
|  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS
|  
| +static int force_clock_reprogram;
| +
| +/*
| + * After 5 iteration's attempts, we consider that hrtimer_interrupt()
| + * is hanging, which could happen with something that slows the interrupt
| + * such as the tracing. Then we force the clock reprogramming for each future
| + * hrtimer interrupts to avoid infinite loops and use the min_delta_ns
| + * threshold that we will overwrite.
| + * The next tick event will be scheduled to 3 times we currently spend on
| + * hrtimer_interrupt(). This gives a good compromise, the cpus will spend
| + * 1/4 of their time to process the hrtimer interrupts. This is enough to
| + * let it running without serious starvation.
| + */
| +
| +static inline void
| +hrtimer_interrupt_hanging(struct clock_event_device *dev,
| +			ktime_t try_time)
| +{
| +	force_clock_reprogram = 1;
| +	dev->min_delta_ns = (unsigned long)try_time.tv64 * 3;
| +	printk(KERN_WARNING "hrtimer: interrupt too slow, "
| +		"forcing clock min delta to %lu ns\n", dev->min_delta_ns);
| +}
|  /*
|   * High resolution timer interrupt
|   * Called with interrupts disabled
| @@ -1180,6 +1203,7 @@ void hrtimer_interrupt(struct clock_event_device *dev)
|  	struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base = &__get_cpu_var(hrtimer_bases);
|  	struct hrtimer_clock_base *base;
|  	ktime_t expires_next, now;
| +	int nr_retries = 0;
|  	int i;
|  
|  	BUG_ON(!cpu_base->hres_active);
| @@ -1187,6 +1211,10 @@ void hrtimer_interrupt(struct clock_event_device *dev)
|  	dev->next_event.tv64 = KTIME_MAX;
|  
|   retry:
| +	/* 5 retries is enough to notice a hang */
| +	if (!(++nr_retries % 5))
| +		hrtimer_interrupt_hanging(dev, ktime_sub(ktime_get(), now));
| +
|  	now = ktime_get();

Hi Frederic,

is it really needed to use mod operation here? Why
cant we test for plain 5 and flush it to zero then?
I mean something like

	if (++nr_retries > 5) {
		nr_retries = 0;
		...
	}

Did I miss anything?

		- Cyrill -
--
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/