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: <20130630023424.GA27780@dastard>
Date:	Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:34:24 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:05:31PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So with that patch, those two boxes have now been fuzzing away for
> > > over 24hrs without seeing that specific sync related bug.
> > 
> > Ok, so at least that confirms that yes, the problem is the excessive
> > contention on inode_sb_list_lock.
> > 
> > Ugh. There's no way we can do that patch by DaveC for 3.10. Not only
> > is it scary, Andi pointed out that it's actively buggy and will miss
> > inodes that need writeback due to moving things to private lists.
> 
> Right - it was just a quick hack for proof of concept... :)
> 
> > So I suspect we'll have to do 3.10 with this starvation issue in
> > place, and mark for stable backporting whatever eventual fix we find.
> 
> I can reproduce the contention problem on both 3.8 and 3.9 kernels,
> so this isn't a recent regression, and as such it's likely I'll be
> able to reproduce it on any kernel since the global inode_lock
> breakup was done back in 2.6.38.

Just as a data point - I just found a machine running a 3.4 kernel
and I can reproduce the inode_sb_list_lock contention problem on it,
too. It's definitely not a new problem...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/