linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.27.8 scheduler bug - threads not being scheduled for long periods

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: <49625894.3090706@novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:59:32 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.27.8 scheduler bug - threads not being scheduled for long
 periods

Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 01:44:41PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>   
>> Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
>>     
>>> I'm wondering if anyone else has run into this problem, and whether they've
>>> found a resolution for it?
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Hi Dimitri,
>>   I have observed similar problems on my opensuse 11.0 box (2.6.25
>> based) when doing kernel builds.  Often times other apps will get
>> starved (like firefox, etc).  I was talking to peterz about it and he
>> pointed me at a commit that went into 28-rcx that fixes this (the sha
>> escapes me at the moment).  I've been meaning to pull the patch into our
>> 2.6.25 and 2.6.27 trees to verify if it fixes it, but I have fairly high
>> confidence it will.  Perhaps Peter can point you at the same patch and
>> you can give it a whirl.  For the time being, can you see if 28 is fixed?
>>
>>     
>
> 2.6.28 appears to be a little bit worse, actually:
>   

Ugg...ok, well thanks for verifying.  I will defer to Peter and Ingo on
this one.

Please keep me in the loop on any new findings here, as the problem
(assuming its the same bug) has been annoying me for months (but
obviously not enough for me to do something about it ;)

-Greg



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (258 bytes)