linux-kernel - Re: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff

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: <20120119075039.GA3517@swordfish.minsk.epam.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:50:40 +0300
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	gouders@...bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de,
	Marcos Souza <marcos.mage@...il.com>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, justinmattock@...il.com,
	Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Subject: Re: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff

On (01/18/12 14:08), Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 16:32 +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Just a small note, since you're talking about removing CPU from nohz.idle_cpus_mask, 
> > that I'm able to reproduce this problem not only when offlining CPU, but during
> > onlininig as well (kernel 3.3):
> 
> yes, if the nohz state is not cleared properly during offline, then the
> issue can happen any time including cpu online etc.
>

Oh, sure. Good point.

Works for me, here is my:

Tested-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> 

	Sergey

> Srivatsa, I thought CPU_PRI_SCHED_INACTIVE as INT_MAX for some reason
> and was expecting sched_ilb_notifier() will be called after setting that
> cpu as inactive. I am now using CPU_DYING which will be called from the
> cpu going down.
> 
> Here is the v2 version of the fix. Can you folks please give it another
> try?
> 
> Thanks.
> ---
> 
> From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
> Subject: sched, nohz: fix nohz cpu idle load balancing state with cpu hotplug
> 
> With the recent nohz scheduler changes, rq's nohz flag 'NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED'
> and its associated state doesn't get cleared immediately after the
> cpu exits idle. This gets cleared as part of the next tick seen on that cpu.
> 
> With the cpu offline, we need to clear this state manually. Fix it by
> registering a cpu notifier which clears the nohz idle load balance
> state for this rq explicitly.
> 
> Reported-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/fair.c |   34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 2237ffe..f605e1d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4843,6 +4843,15 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(int cpu)
>  	return;
>  }
>  
> +static inline void clear_nohz_tick_stopped(int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (unlikely(test_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu)))) {
> +		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
> +		atomic_dec(&nohz.nr_cpus);
> +		clear_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu));
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static inline void set_cpu_sd_state_busy(void)
>  {
>  	struct sched_domain *sd;
> @@ -4881,6 +4890,12 @@ void select_nohz_load_balancer(int stop_tick)
>  {
>  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If this cpu is going down, then nothing needs to be done.
> +	 */
> +	if (!cpu_active(cpu))
> +		return;
> +
>  	if (stop_tick) {
>  		if (test_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu)))
>  			return;
> @@ -4891,6 +4906,18 @@ void select_nohz_load_balancer(int stop_tick)
>  	}
>  	return;
>  }
> +
> +static int __cpuinit sched_ilb_notifier(struct notifier_block *nfb,
> +					unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> +{
> +	switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
> +	case CPU_DYING:
> +		clear_nohz_tick_stopped(smp_processor_id());
> +		return NOTIFY_OK;
> +	default:
> +		return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +	}
> +}
>  #endif
>  
>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(balancing);
> @@ -5047,11 +5074,7 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
>  	* busy tick after returning from idle, we will update the busy stats.
>  	*/
>  	set_cpu_sd_state_busy();
> -	if (unlikely(test_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu)))) {
> -		clear_bit(NOHZ_TICK_STOPPED, nohz_flags(cpu));
> -		cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
> -		atomic_dec(&nohz.nr_cpus);
> -	}
> +	clear_nohz_tick_stopped(cpu);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * None are in tickless mode and hence no need for NOHZ idle load
> @@ -5549,6 +5572,7 @@ __init void init_sched_fair_class(void)
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
>  	zalloc_cpumask_var(&nohz.idle_cpus_mask, GFP_NOWAIT);
> +	cpu_notifier(sched_ilb_notifier, 0);
>  #endif
>  #endif /* SMP */
>  
> 
> 
--
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/