linux-kernel - Re: Help needed: Resume problems in 2.6.32-rc, perhaps related to preempt

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]

Date:	Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:30:40 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: Help needed: Resume problems in 2.6.32-rc, perhaps related to
 preempt_count leakage in keventd

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 15:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 09 November 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 15:02 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > 
> > > > ok, then my observation should not apply.
> > > 
> > > I think it _IS_ releated because the worker_thread is CPU affine and
> > > the debug_smp_processor_id() check does:
> > > 
> > >     if (cpumask_equal(&current->cpus_allowed, cpumask_of(this_cpu)))
> > > 
> > > which prevents that usage of smp_processor_id() in ksoftirqd and
> > > keventd in preempt enabled regions is warned on.
> > > 
> > > We saw exaclty the same back trace with fd21073 (sched: Fix affinity
> > > logic in select_task_rq_fair()).
> > > 
> > > Rafael, can you please add a printk to debug_smp_processor_id() so we
> > > can see on which CPU we are running ? I suspect we are on the wrong
> > > one.
> > 
> > I wonder if that's not intimately related to the problem I had, namely
> > newidle balancing offline CPUs as they're coming up, making a mess of
> > cpu enumeration.
> 
> Very likely.  What did you do to fix it?

You don't really wanna know.  In 31 with newidle enabled, the below
fixed it.  It won't fix 32, though it might cure the resume problem.

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 1b59e26..6e71932 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4032,7 +4049,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
 	unsigned long flags;
 	struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_tmpmask);
 
-	cpumask_setall(cpus);
+	cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_online_mask);
 
 	/*
 	 * When power savings policy is enabled for the parent domain, idle
@@ -4195,7 +4212,7 @@ load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
 	int all_pinned = 0;
 	struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_tmpmask);
 
-	cpumask_setall(cpus);
+	cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_online_mask);
 
 	/*
 	 * When power savings policy is enabled for the parent domain, idle


--
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/