linux-kernel - Re: linux-next-20110923: warning kernel/rcutree.c:1833

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]

Message-ID: <20111003162221.GB2403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Oct 2011 09:22:21 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next-20110923: warning kernel/rcutree.c:1833

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:59:03PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 05:28:32PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:50:22AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:24:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > @@ -328,11 +326,11 @@ static int rcu_implicit_offline_qs(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> > > >  		return 1;
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > > -	/* If preemptible RCU, no point in sending reschedule IPI. */
> > > > -	if (rdp->preemptible)
> > > > -		return 0;
> > > > -
> > > > -	/* The CPU is online, so send it a reschedule IPI. */
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * The CPU is online, so send it a reschedule IPI.  This forces
> > > > +	 * it through the scheduler, and (inefficiently) also handles cases
> > > > +	 * where idle loops fail to inform RCU about the CPU being idle.
> > > > +	 */
> > > 
> > > If the idle loop forgets to call rcu_idle_enter() before going to
> > > sleep, I don't know if it's a good idea to try to cure that situation
> > > by forcing a quiescent state remotely. It may make the thing worse
> > > because we actually won't notice the lack of call to rcu_idle_enter()
> > > that the rcu stall detector would otherwise report to us.
> > > 
> > > Also I don't think that works. If the task doesn't have
> > > TIF_RESCHED, it won't go through the scheduler on irq exit.
> > > smp_send_reschedule() doesn't set the flag. And also scheduler_ipi()
> > > returns right away if no wake up is pending.
> > > 
> > > So, other than resuming the idle loop to sleep again, nothing may happen.
> > > 
> > > Or am I missing something?
> > 
> > Hmmm...  Seems like the IPIs aren't helping in any case, then?
> 
> I thought it was there for !PREEMPT cases where the task has TIF_RESCHED
> but takes too much time to find an opportunity to go to sleep.

Indeed, and it might be worth leaving in for that.

> > I suppose that I could do an smp_call_function_single(), which then
> > did a set_need_resched()...
> > 
> > But this is a separate issue that I need to deal with.  That said, any
> > suggestions are welcome!
> 
> Note you can't call smp_call_function_*() while irqs are disabled.

Sigh!  This isn't the first time this year that I have forgotten that,
is it?

> Perhaps you need something like kernel/sched.c:resched_cpu()
> This adds some rq->lock contention though.

This would happen infrequently, and could be made to be event more
infrequent.  But I wonder what happens when you do this to a CPU
that is running the idle task?  Seems like it should work normally,
but...

						Thanx, Paul
--
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/