| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4AC2712C.4080901@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:42:20 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc1 Eric Dumazet a écrit : > Martin Schwidefsky a écrit : >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:39:31 -0700 (PDT) >> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>>> Linus Torvalds a écrit : >>>>> Go wild, test it out, and let us know about any regressions you find, >>>> Something seems wrong with process time accounting. >>>> >>>> Following program should consume 10*8 seconds of cpu on a 8 cpu machine, but >>>> with 2.6.32-rc1 numbers are crazy. >>> Ok, so the top-level process time looks sane _while_ the thing is running >>> (sum of all threads), but the per-thread times look broken (as if they had >>> randomly had the times of the other threads added into them - looks to me >>> like they on average had half the other threads' time accounted into >>> them). >>> >>> And then at the end, it looks like the time of the threads (which was >>> over-accounted) get re-accounted back into the main process, so the final >>> time is indeed wildly inflated. >>> >>> IOW, looks like we're adding thread times multiple times to other threads >>> (and then finally to the parent). >>> >>> I'm adding the usual suspects to the cc, and leaving your results and >>> test-program quoted here for them.. Thomas, Martin, John - if you're not >>> the people I should blame for this, let me know. >> Uh-oh.. usual suspects, eh? >> >> For starters I run the test program on an s390 with >> VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y: >> >> time ./burn-cpu >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:08 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> - - Rl+ 0:01 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:16 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> - - Rl+ 0:02 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:25 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> - - Rl+ 0:03 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:33 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> - - Rl+ 0:04 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:41 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> - - Rl+ 0:05 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:50 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> - - Rl+ 0:06 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 0:58 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> - - Rl+ 0:07 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 1:07 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> - - Rl+ 0:08 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 1:15 ./burn-cpu >> - - Sl+ 0:00 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> - - Rl+ 0:09 - >> PID TTY STAT TIME COMMAND >> 2979 pts/0 - 1:25 ./burn-cpu >> - - S+ 1:25 - >> >> real 0m10.708s >> user 1m25.051s >> sys 0m0.174s >> >> looks better, gives an average of 10.63 seconds per thread and the per >> thread numbers are fine. I'll see what happens with the test case on my >> pc@...e. >> > > > I did a bisection and found commit def0a9b2573e00ab0b486cb5382625203ab4c4a6 > was the origin of the problem on my x86_32 machine. > > def0a9b2573e00ab0b486cb5382625203ab4c4a6 is first bad commit > commit def0a9b2573e00ab0b486cb5382625203ab4c4a6 > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> > Date: Fri Sep 18 20:14:01 2009 +0200 > > sched_clock: Make it NMI safe > > Arjan complained about the suckyness of TSC on modern machines, and > asked if we could do something about that for PERF_SAMPLE_TIME. > > Make cpu_clock() NMI safe by removing the spinlock and using > cmpxchg. This also makes it smaller and more robust. > > Affects architectures that use HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK, i.e. IA64 > and x86. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> > LKML-Reference: <new-submission> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> > Pretty calm lkml these days... must be some kind of event in the states ? :) Checking this commit, I believe problem comes from cmpxchg(), which doesnt handle 64 bit on X86_32 (no compilation error, and null operation :( ) We have two (or three choices) : 1) Use cmpxchg64() 2) Fix cmpxchg() to handle 64bit as well (or issue a compilation error) 3) Revert Peter patch :( Here is the patch I used to get proper operation. [PATCH] sched_clock: Use cmpxchg64() Commit def0a9b2573e00ab0b486cb5382625203ab4c4a6 (sched_clock: Make it NMI safe) assumed cmpxchg() of 64bit values was available on X86_32 Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> --- diff --git a/kernel/sched_clock.c b/kernel/sched_clock.c index ac2e1dc..479ce56 100644 --- a/kernel/sched_clock.c +++ b/kernel/sched_clock.c @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ again: clock = wrap_max(clock, min_clock); clock = wrap_min(clock, max_clock); - if (cmpxchg(&scd->clock, old_clock, clock) != old_clock) + if (cmpxchg64(&scd->clock, old_clock, clock) != old_clock) goto again; return clock; @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ again: val = remote_clock; } - if (cmpxchg(ptr, old_val, val) != old_val) + if (cmpxchg64(ptr, old_val, val) != old_val) goto again; return val; -- 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