linux-kernel - Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

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: <20141213083055.GI32572@gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 13 Dec 2014 09:30:55 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dâniel Fraga <fragabr@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4


* Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/2014 03:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:58:50AM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> > 
> >>> > >I'm also not sure if the bug ever happens with preemption disabled.
> >>> > >Sasha, was that you who reported that you cannot reproduce it without
> >>> > >preemption? It strikes me that there's a race condition in
> >>> > >__cond_resched() wrt preemption, for example: we do
> >>> > >
> >>> > >       __preempt_count_add(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> >>> > >       __schedule();
> >>> > >       __preempt_count_sub(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> >>> > >
> >>> > >and in between the __schedule() and __preempt_count_sub(), if an
> >>> > >interrupt comes in and wakes up some important process, it won't
> >>> > >reschedule (because preemption is active), but then we enable
> >>> > >preemption again and don't check whether we should reschedule (again),
> >>> > >and we just go on our merry ways.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Now, I don't see how that could really matter for a long time -
> >>> > >returning to user space will check need_resched, and sleeping will
> >>> > >obviously force a reschedule anyway, so these kinds of races should at
> >>> > >most delay things by just a tiny amount,
> >> > 
> >> > If the machine has NOHZ and has a cpu bound userspace task, it could
> >> > take quite a while before userspace would trigger a reschedule (at
> >> > least if I've understood the comments on this thread properly)
> > Dave, Sasha, if you guys are running CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y and
> > CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y, please let me know.  I am currently assuming
> > that none of your CPUs are in NO_HZ_FULL mode.  If this assumption is
> > incorrect, there are some other pieces of RCU that I should be taking
> > a hard look at.
> 
> This is my no_hz related config:
> 
> $ grep NO_HZ .config
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON=y
> # CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE is not set
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL=y
> CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL_ALL=y

Just curious, if you disable NO_HZ_FULL_ALL, does the bug change?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/