linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()" locks up on ARM

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: <1306510165.27474.272.camel@e102391-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2011 16:29:25 +0100
From:	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()"
 locks up on ARM

On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 20:53 +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> On 5/26/2011 10:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 19:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 19:04 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>> On 05/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -2636,7 +2636,8 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> >>>>   		 * to spin on ->on_cpu if p is current, since that would
> >>>>   		 * deadlock.
> >>>>   		 */
> >>>> -		if (p == current) {
> >>>> +		if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> >>>> +			p->sched_contributes_to_load = 0;
> >>>>   			ttwu_queue(p, cpu);
> >>>
> >>> Btw. I do not pretend I really understand se->vruntime, but in this
> >>> case we are doing enqueue_task() without ->task_waking(), however we
> >>> pass ENQUEUE_WAKING. Is it correct?
> >>
> >> No its not, that's the thing that I got wrong the first time and caused
> >> these pauses.
> >
> > We'd end up with something like the below, which isn't too different
> > from what I've now got queued.
> >
> > It has the extra cpu == smp_processor_id() check, but I'm not sure this
> > whole case is worth the trouble. I could go stick some counters in to
> > verify how often all this happens I guess.
> >
> Are you planning send version of this patch for stable .39
> too ?

.39 is fine, as the ttwu() changes only appeared in mainline during the
current merge window.

Cheers,

	M.
-- 
Reality is an implementation detail.


--
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/