| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130306171648.GO3268@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:16:48 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Threaded irqs + 100% CPU RT task = RCU stall On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:58:54PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > So, I guess the question is, whether we want to try and make the system > > fail in a more meaningful way -- kind of like the rt throttling message > > does - as it lets users know they've hit the wall? Something watching > > That Joe Doe should have noticed the throttler message, which came > before the stall, shouldn't he? > > > for kstat_incr_softirqs traffic perhaps? Or other options? > > The rcu stall detector could use the softirq counter and if it did not > change in the stall period print: "Caused by softirq starvation" or > something like that. The idea is to (at grace-period start) take a snapshot of the CPU's value of kstat.softirqs[RCU_SOFTIRQ], then check it at stall time, right? Or do I have the wrong softirq counter? 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists