linux-kernel - Re: too many timer retries happen when do local timer swtich with broadcast timer

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:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:32:48 +0530
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Jason Liu <liu.h.jason@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: too many timer retries happen when do local timer swtich with
 broadcast timer

On Friday 22 February 2013 04:01 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:24:00AM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> BTW, Lorenzo off-list mentioned to me about warning in boot-up
>>> which I missed while testing your patch. It will take bit more
>>> time for me to look into it and hence thought of reporting it.
>>>
>>> [    2.186126] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [    2.190979] WARNING: at kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c:501
>>> tick_broadcast_oneshot_control+0x1c0/0x21c()
>>
>> Which one is that? tick_broadcast_pending or tick_force_broadcast_mask ?
>
> It is the tick_force_broadcast_mask and I think that's because on all
> systems we are testing, the broadcast timer IRQ is a thundering herd,
> all CPUs get out of idle at once and try to get out of broadcast mode
> at more or less the same time.
>
So the issue comes ups only when the idle state used where CPU wakeup
more or less at same time as Lorenzo mentioned. I have two platforms
where I could test the patch and see the issue only with one platform.

Yesterday I didn't notice the warning because it wasn't seen on that
platform :-) OMAP4 idle entry and exit in deep state is staggered
between CPUs and hence the warning isn't seen. On OMAP5 though,
there is an additional C-state where idle entry/exit for CPU
isn't staggered and I see the issue in that case.

Actually the broad-cast code doesn't expect such a behavior
from CPUs since only the broad-cast affine CPU should wake
up and rest of the CPU should be woken up by the broad-cast
IPIs.

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/