linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of processes hogging 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]

Message-ID: <53FC82D2.1020401@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:51:30 +0800
From:	Chai Wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
To:	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softlockup: make detector be aware of task switch of
 processes hogging cpu

On 08/22/2014 09:58 AM, Don Zickus wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 01:42:22PM +0800, chai wen wrote:
>> For now, soft lockup detector warns once for each case of process softlockup.
>> But the thread 'watchdog/n' may not always get the cpu at the time slot between
>> the task switch of two processes hogging that cpu to reset soft_watchdog_warn.
>>
>> An example would be two processes hogging the cpu.  Process A causes the
>> softlockup warning and is killed manually by a user.  Process B immediately
>> becomes the new process hogging the cpu preventing the softlockup code from
>> resetting the soft_watchdog_warn variable.
>>
>> This case is a false negative of "warn only once for a process", as there may
>> be a different process that is going to hog the cpu.  Resolve this by
>> saving/checking the task pointer of the hogging process and use that to reset
>> soft_watchdog_warn too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: chai wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> 


Hi Andrew

Sorry for some disturbing.
Could you help to check and pick up this little improvement patch ?

I am not sure which MAINTAINER I should talk to, but the original version of
this patch is queued to -mm tree by you, so I assume that they are in the charge of you.


thanks
chai wen

>> ---
>>  kernel/watchdog.c |   16 +++++++++++++++-
>>  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> index 0037db6..2e55620 100644
>> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
>> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, softlockup_touch_sync);
>>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, soft_watchdog_warn);
>>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, hrtimer_interrupts);
>>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, soft_lockup_hrtimer_cnt);
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, softlockup_task_ptr_saved);
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
>>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, hard_watchdog_warn);
>>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, watchdog_nmi_touch);
>> @@ -328,8 +329,20 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart watchdog_timer_fn(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>>  			return HRTIMER_RESTART;
>>  
>>  		/* only warn once */
>> -		if (__this_cpu_read(soft_watchdog_warn) == true)
>> +		if (__this_cpu_read(soft_watchdog_warn) == true) {
>> +			/*
>> +			 * Handle the case where multiple processes are
>> +			 * causing softlockups but the duration is small
>> +			 * enough, the softlockup detector can not reset
>> +			 * itself in time.  Use task pointers to detect this.
>> +			 */
>> +			if (__this_cpu_read(softlockup_task_ptr_saved) !=
>> +			    current) {
>> +				__this_cpu_write(soft_watchdog_warn, false);
>> +				__touch_watchdog();
>> +			}
>>  			return HRTIMER_RESTART;
>> +		}
>>  
>>  		if (softlockup_all_cpu_backtrace) {
>>  			/* Prevent multiple soft-lockup reports if one cpu is already
>> @@ -345,6 +358,7 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart watchdog_timer_fn(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>>  		pr_emerg("BUG: soft lockup - CPU#%d stuck for %us! [%s:%d]\n",
>>  			smp_processor_id(), duration,
>>  			current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
>> +		__this_cpu_write(softlockup_task_ptr_saved, current);
>>  		print_modules();
>>  		print_irqtrace_events(current);
>>  		if (regs)
>> -- 
>> 1.7.1
>>
> .
> 



-- 
Regards

Chai Wen
--
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/