linux-kernel - Re: [watchdog] combine nmi

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: <20100409133252.GH15159@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:32:52 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, gorcunov@...il.com,
	aris@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 03:02:53AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:11:22AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 05:33:38PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very
> > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector.  Using Ingo's suggestion,
> > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c.
> > > 
> > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector
> > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so
> > > to see if there are any lockups.
> > 
> > I raised some questions privately to Ingo, he asked I re-iterate them with
> > Peter Z. and Frederic W. cc'd.
> > 
> > > Ok thanks.  When you get a chance I had a couple of questions I was hoping
> > > you could answer for me.
> > >
> > > - does the hrtimer stuff look ok?
> 
> 
> IMO, only partially, as explained in my previous mail.

Yup, makes sense, thanks.

> 
> 
> > > - I wanted to merge the hung task detector code into watchdog.c.  The main
> > >   logic of the code is to walk the task list which i thought about doing
> > >   in the watchdog kthread.  I assume that is the right way to go, but i was a
> > >   little confused on how the scheduler worked.  I thought the watchdog kthread
> > >   would be scheduled very frequently (being a high priority task) but it seems
> > >   to only schedule when the code wakes it up.  Is that right?
> 
> 
> Yeah but high-prio doesn't mean that it is scheduled often.
> It means that once it is in a runnable state (TASK_RUNNING), it
> will have a higher priority to get into the cpu (lower prio tasks
> will have less time in the cpu than the higher prio until the higher prio
> get to sleep). Especially here this is a SCHED_FIFO class, so usual
> tasks (SCHED_OTHER) won't ever run until it goes to sleep.
> 
> But when it goes to sleep, it doesn't need the cpu, so other tasks
> can run.
> And it is only woken up every 30 secs, just to call
> __touch_softlockup_watchdog() and then it goes to sleep again
> until the timer wakes it up. That's why it doesn't run often.
> The high priority is just here to ensure it will do its job
> without too much latency, may be even to avoid rt-tasks to
> trigger spurious soft lockups just because the softlockup task
> couldn't run because of them taking the cpu for too long.
> If it starves because of a higher priority task running for
> too long, it can't touch the softlockup_touch_ts, and the timer
> will think there is a softlockup.

Ok.

> 
> 
> Concerning the hung task detector, I think it should be left as is in
> its own file and dedicated task. IIRC the hung task and softlockup
> detectors were in the same file before but they were split up.

I was doing that work based on a request by Ingo.  Ingo, thoughts?

> 
> We can't factorize both in the same task. The softlockup detector
> needs to be a real time task for the reasons stated above. And it's fine
> because it does very few things so it doesn't bother the other tasks
> with its high prio (unless there are strong rt requirement elsewhere).
> But the hung task detector must be a normal task, because it doesn't
> have latency requirements, it just checks if a task is blocked for too
> long, it's not like the softlockup detector that really needs to keep
> up with a timer. Also it does too much things to be an rt task (walking
> through the entire task list).

Ok.  Makes sense.

Cheers,
Don

--
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/