linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for March 25 (Call trace: RCU|workqueues|block|VFS|ext4 related?)

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:	Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:07:20 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for March 25 (Call trace:
 RCU|workqueues|block|VFS|ext4 related?)

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 08:25:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:30:34AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:15:22PM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > >> But then came RCU :-(.
> > >
> > > Well, if it turns out to be a problem in RCU I will certainly apologize.
> > >
> > 
> > No, that's not so dramatic.
> > Dealing with this RCU issue has nice side-effects: I remembered (and
> > finally did) to use a reduced kernel-config set.
> > The base for it I created with 'make localmodconfig' and did some
> > manual fine-tuning afterwards (throw out media, rc, dvd, unneeded FSs,
> > etc.).
> > Also, I can use fresh gcc-4.6 (4.6.0-1) from the official Debian repos.
> > 
> > So, I started building with
> > "revert-rcu-patches/0001-Revert-rcu-introduce-kfree_rcu.patch".
> > I will let you know.
> 
> And please also check for tasks consuming all available CPU.

And I still cannot reproduce with the full RCU stack (but based off of
2.6.38 rather than -next).  Nevertheless, if you would like to try a
speculative patch, here you go.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

rcu: further lower priority in rcu_yield()

Although rcu_yield() dropped from real-time to normal priority, there
is always the possibility that the competing tasks have been niced.
So nice to 19 in rcu_yield() to help ensure that other tasks have a
better chance of running.
    
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 759f54b..5477764 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -1492,6 +1492,7 @@ static void rcu_yield(void (*f)(unsigned long), unsigned long arg)
 	mod_timer(&yield_timer, jiffies + 2);
 	sp.sched_priority = 0;
 	sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_NORMAL, &sp);
+	set_user_nice(current, 19);
 	schedule();
 	sp.sched_priority = RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO;
 	sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, &sp);
--
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/