linux-kernel - Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s! [systemd-udevd:1667]

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: <20140526182644.GP18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2014 19:26:44 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s!
 [systemd-udevd:1667]

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:17:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > That's the livelock.  OK.
> 
> Hmm. Is there any reason we don't have some exclusion around
> "check_submounts_and_drop()"?
> 
> That would seem to be the simplest way to avoid any livelock: just
> don't allow concurrent calls (we could make the lock per-filesystem or
> whatever). This whole case should all be for just exceptional cases
> anyway.
> 
> We already sleep in that thing (well, "cond_resched()"), so taking a
> mutex should be fine.

What makes you think that it's another check_submounts_and_drop()?
And not, e.g., shrink_dcache_parent().  Or memory shrinkers.  Or
some twit sitting in a subdirectory and doing stat(2) in a loop, for
that matter...

I really, really wonder WTF is causing that - we have spent 20-odd
seconds spinning while dentries in there were being evicted by
something.  That - on sysfs, where dentry_kill() should be non-blocking
and very fast.  Something very fishy is going on and I'd really like
to understand the use pattern we are seeing there.
--
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/