linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockup_detector: Make DETECT_HUNT_TASK default depend on LOCKUP

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: <20100809142121.GD2169@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:21:21 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockup_detector: Make DETECT_HUNT_TASK default depend
 on LOCKUP_DETECTOR

On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:49:17AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > Why s390 doesn't want the softlockup detector to begin with?
> > 
> > If I remember correctly then we disabled that back then because we got
> > false positives. The reason for those were that the softlockup detector
> > did not take steal time into account.
> > E.g. if a guest cpu runs for 10 seconds, but the hypervisor would steal
> > 9 seconds in order to run other guest cpus this specific cpu would still
> > think it ran for 10 seconds and therefore would generate invalid warnings.
> 
> I have learned recently that is applies to all virtual machines including
> KVM, Xen and VMWare(?).  However, you only see this when you overload the
> hypervisor with lots of guests.  Which is why you normally don't see this
> on those types of guests.

On s390 you always run virtualized and usually even as a 2nd level guest.
Overloading a machine is quite common here.
The problem we have is that you can't tell afterwards if a warning was valid
or invalid due to overloading. Imho it is just pointless without taking steal
time into account and that's why we disabled it.
--
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/