linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() causes rq->lock deadlock

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: <20140520142804.GB30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 16:28:04 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
Cc:	"bsegall@...gle.com" <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
	"chris.j.arges@...onical.com" <chris.j.arges@...onical.com>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: tg_set_cfs_bandwidth() causes rq->lock deadlock

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 06:21:15PM +0400, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> 20.05.2014, 17:15, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>:
> > Completely untested... does anybody have a 'useful' test case for this
> > bw stuff?
> 
> I can test it for stability.
> I'll start tomorrow, now I'm testing Ben's + my patches together.

Do you have an easy to reproduce setup and workload so I might be able
to test as well? Or are you simply dumping it in 'production' to see
what happens?

I mean, the trivial setup with a few cgroups and spinners isn't that
interesting because it'll just keep the timer ticking and never go idle.

I suppose I could try writing a sleep/spinner which randomly exceeds bw
constraints.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped