linux-kernel - Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.

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: <1372096391.18733.177.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:53:11 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.

On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 19:35 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/24, Dave Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 06:04:52PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Could you please do the following:
> >  >
> >  > 	1. # cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing
> >  > 	   # echo 0 >> options/function-trace
> >  > 	   # echo preemptirqsoff >> current_tracer
> >  >
> >  > 	2. reproduce the lockup again
> >  >
> >  > 	3. show the result of
> >  > 	   # cat trace
> >
> > Not sure this is helpful, but..
> 
> This makes me think that something is seriously broken.
> 
> Or I do not understand this stuff at all. Quite possible too.
> Steven, could you please help?
> 
> > # preemptirqsoff latency trace v1.1.5 on 3.10.0-rc7+
> > # --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > # latency: 165015310 us, #4/4, CPU#1 | (M:preempt VP:0, KP:0, SP:0 HP:0 #P:4)
> 
> OK, 165015310/1000000 = 165, nice.

9600 baud modem serial console?

> 
> > #    -----------------
> > #    | task: trinity-child1-3173 (uid:1000 nice:19 policy:0 rt_prio:0)
> > #    -----------------
> > #  => started at: vprintk_emit
> > #  => ended at:   vprintk_emit
> > #
> > #
> > #                  _------=> CPU#
> > #                 / _-----=> irqs-off
> > #                | / _----=> need-resched
> > #                || / _---=> hardirq/softirq
> > #                ||| / _--=> preempt-depth
> > #                |||| /     delay
> > #  cmd     pid   ||||| time  |   caller
> > #     \   /      |||||  \    |   /
> > trinity--3173    1dNh1    0us!: console_unlock <-vprintk_emit
> > trinity--3173    1dNh1 165015310us : console_unlock <-vprintk_emit
> > trinity--3173    1dNh1 165015311us+: stop_critical_timings <-vprintk_emit
> > trinity--3173    1dNh1 165015315us : <stack trace>
> >  => console_unlock
> >  => vprintk_emit
> >  => printk
> >  => watchdog_timer_fn
> 
> But this is already called in the non-preemtible context, how can
> 'started at' blame vprintk_emit?

Well, it looks to really have started with console_unlock() not
vprintk_emit.

> 
> >  => __run_hrtimer
> >  => hrtimer_interrupt
> >  => smp_apic_timer_interrupt
> >  => apic_timer_interrupt
> >  => _raw_spin_lock
> 
> This is where start_critical_timing() should be called?
> 
> Or by TRACE_IRQS_OFF in apic_timer_interrupt...

Also, what _raw_spin_lock is that. Unless the interrupt triggered at the
start of the completion spin lock (before it disabled interrupts), it
could have happened while spinning on inode_sb_list_lock?

But you are correct, the critical timing should have started with the
entering of smp_apic_timer_interrupt. Did anything re-enable interrupts?


> 
> >  => sync_inodes_sb
> >  => sync_inodes_one_sb
> >  => iterate_supers
> >  => sys_sync
> >  => tracesys
> 
> Also. watchdog_timer_fn() calls printk() only if it detects the
> lockup, so I assume you hit another one?

Probably.

-- Steve


--
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/