linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] watchdog: nohz: don't run watchdog on nohz

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: <1427767475.3147.32.camel@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:04:35 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	cmetcalf@...hip.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
	chai wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
	Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: nohz: don't run watchdog on nohz_full cores

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 15:12 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetcalf@...hip.com wrote:
> > From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
> > 
> > Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
> > cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
> > regular scheduling events.  Accordingly, just exit out immediately
> > from any nohz_full core.
> > 
> > An alternate approach would be to add a flags field or function to
> > smp_hotplug_thread to control on which cores the percpu threads
> > are created, but it wasn't clear that much mechanism was useful.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> It seems like the correct solution would be to hook into the idle_loop
> somehow.  If the cpu is idle, then it seems unlikely that a lockup could
> occur.
> 
> My fear with this apporach is a lockup would occur on the nohz cpu and it
> would go undetected because that cpu is disabled.  Further no printk is
> thrown out to even indicate a cpu is disabled making it more difficult to
> debug.

Hm, I don't see why this is needed, for debugging/testing you turn it
on, when you set up for critical operation, you turn it off.

A bigger deal is the clocksource watchdog methinks.  Measurement
inspired me to make it dead yesterday.

	-Mike

--
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/