linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: Print more useful debug info upon receiving IPI on an offline CPU

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:	Wed, 07 May 2014 02:53:19 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
	tj@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, fweisbec@...il.com,
	hch@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com, bp@...e.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mgalbraith@...e.de, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] smp: Print more useful debug info upon receiving
 IPI on an offline CPU

On 05/07/2014 02:04 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2014 23:32:51 +0530 "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Today the smp-call-function code just prints a warning if we get an IPI on
>> an offline CPU. This info is sufficient to let us know that something went
>> wrong, but often it is very hard to debug exactly who sent the IPI and why,
>> from this info alone.
>>
>> In most cases, we get the warning about the IPI to an offline CPU, immediately
>> after the CPU going offline comes out of the stop-machine phase and reenables
>> interrupts. Since all online CPUs participate in stop-machine, the information
>> regarding the sender of the IPI is already lost by the time we exit the
>> stop-machine loop. So even if we dump the stack on each CPU at this point,
>> we won't find anything useful since all of them will show the stack-trace of
>> the stopper thread. So we need a better way to figure out who sent the IPI and
>> why.
>>
>> To achieve this, when we detect an IPI targeted to an offline CPU, loop through
>> the call-single-data linked list and print out the payload (i.e., the name
>> of the function which was supposed to be executed by the target CPU). This
>> would give us an insight as to who might have sent the IPI and help us debug
>> this further.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -185,15 +185,28 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
>>  {
>>  	struct llist_node *entry;
>>  	struct call_single_data *csd, *csd_next;
>> +	int warn = 0;
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
>>  	 */
>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()));
>> +	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))) {
>> +		warn = 1;
>> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>> +	}
>>  
>>  	entry = llist_del_all(&__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue));
>>  	entry = llist_reverse_order(entry);
>>  
>> +	if (unlikely(warn)) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * We don't have to use the _safe() variant here
>> +		 * because we are not invoking the IPI handlers yet.
>> +		 */
>> +		llist_for_each_entry(csd, entry, llist)
>> +			pr_warn("SMP IPI Payload: %pS \n", csd->func);
>> +	}
>> +
> 
> This will emit the WARN_ON a single time, but will emit the "IPI
> Payload" list every time the cpu is found to be offline.  So on the
> second and successive occurrences some output will still occur.
> 
> Unfortunately WARN_ON_ONCE() returns the value of `condition', not
> `__warned', so we have to hand-code things.  Like this?
>

Yeah, this version looks better. Sorry for missing this earlier.
I'll incorporate this in my next version of the patchset.

Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
 
> void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> {
> 	struct llist_node *entry;
> 	struct call_single_data *csd, *csd_next;
> 	static bool warned;
> 
> 	entry = llist_del_all(&__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue));
> 	entry = llist_reverse_order(entry);
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
> 	 */
> 	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()) && !warned)) {
> 		warned = true;
> 		WARN_ON(1);
> 		/*
> 		 * We don't have to use the _safe() variant here
> 		 * because we are not invoking the IPI handlers yet.
> 		 */
> 		llist_for_each_entry(csd, entry, llist)
> 			pr_warn("SMP IPI Payload: %pS \n", csd->func);
> 	}
> 
> 	llist_for_each_entry_safe(csd, csd_next, entry, llist) {
> 		csd->func(csd->info);
> 		csd_unlock(csd);
> 	}
> }
> 
> 
> --- a/kernel/smp.c~smp-print-more-useful-debug-info-upon-receiving-ipi-on-an-offline-cpu-fix
> +++ a/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -185,20 +185,17 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_in
>  {
>  	struct llist_node *entry;
>  	struct call_single_data *csd, *csd_next;
> -	int warn = 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
> -	 */
> -	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()))) {
> -		warn = 1;
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> -	}
> +	static bool warned;
> 
>  	entry = llist_del_all(&__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue));
>  	entry = llist_reverse_order(entry);
> 
> -	if (unlikely(warn)) {
> +	/*
> +	 * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
> +	 */
> +	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()) && !warned)) {
> +		warned = true;
> +		WARN_ON(1);
>  		/*
>  		 * We don't have to use the _safe() variant here
>  		 * because we are not invoking the IPI handlers yet.
> _
> 

--
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/