linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: smp: Fix the CPU hotplug race with scheduler.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:57:01 +0530
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: smp: Fix the CPU hotplug race with scheduler.

On 6/20/2011 5:49 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:21:48PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On 6/20/2011 5:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Any pointers on the other question about "why we need to enable
>> interrupts before the CPU is ready?"
>
> To ensure that things like the delay loop calibration and twd calibration
> can run, though that looks like it'll run happily enough with the boot
> CPU updating jiffies.
>
I guessed it and had same point as above. Calibration will still
work.

> However, I'm still not taking your patch because I believe its just
> papering over the real issue, which is not as you describe.
>
> You first need to work out why the spinlock lockup detection is firing
> after just 61us rather than the full 1s and fix that.
>
This is possibly because of my script which doesn't wait for 1
second.

> You then need to work out whether you really do have spinlock lockup,
> and if so, why.  Implementing trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() may help to
> find out what CPU#0 is doing, though we can only do that with IRQs on,
> and so would be fragile.
>
> We can test whether CPU#0 is going off to do something else while CPU#1
> is being brought up, by adding a preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
> in __cpu_up() to prevent the wait-for-cpu#1-online being preempted by
> other threads - I suspect you'll still see spinlock lockup on the
> xtime seqlock on CPU#1 though.  That would suggest a coherency issue.
>
> Finally, how are you provoking this - and what kernel configuration are
> you using?
Latest mainline kernel with omap2plus_defconfig and below simple script
to trigger the failure.

-------------
while true
do
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
done


Regards
Santosh
--
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/