linux-kernel - Re: Yet more softlockups.

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: <20130710151324.GA11309@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:13:24 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Yet more softlockups.

On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 09:24:08AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
 > 
 > * Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:15:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
 > >  > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > > BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 23s! [trinity-child1:14565]
 > >  > > perf samples too long (2519 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
 > >  > > INFO: NMI handler (perf_event_nmi_handler) took too long to run: 238147.002 msecs
 > >  > 
 > >  > So we see a softlockup of 23 seconds and the perf_event_nmi_handler
 > >  > claims it did run 23.8 seconds.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Are there more instances of NMI handler messages ?
 > > 
 > > [ 2552.006181] perf samples too long (2511 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
 > > [ 2552.008680] INFO: NMI handler (perf_event_nmi_handler) took too long to run: 500392.002 msecs
 > 
 > Dave, could you pull in the latest perf fixes at:
 > 
 >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git perf/urgent
 > 
 > In particular this:
 > 
 >   e5302920da9e perf: Fix interrupt handler timing harness
 > 
 > could make a difference - if your tests somehow end up activating perf.

Something is really fucked up in the kernel side of perf.
I get this right after booting..

[  114.516619] perf samples too long (4262 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000

That's before I even get a chance to log in, so I'm pretty sure perf isn't even being run.

And this is just booting up my desktop, not fuzzing.

	Dave

--
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/