linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/4] printk: Softlockup avoidance

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:37:42 +0000
From:	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pmladek@...e.com" <pmladek@...e.com>,
	"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Gavin Hu <gavin.hu.2010@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] printk: Softlockup avoidance



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Kara [mailto:jack@...e.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:38 AM
> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; pmladek@...e.com;
> rostedt@...dmis.org; Gavin Hu <gavin.hu.2010@...il.com>; KY Srinivasan
> <kys@...rosoft.com>; Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Subject: [PATCH 0/4] printk: Softlockup avoidance
> 
> From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> 
> Hello,
> 
> since lately there were several attempts at dealing with softlockups due
> to heavy printk traffic [1] [2] and I've been also privately pinged by
> couple of people about the state of the patch set, I've decided to respin
> the patch set.
> 
> To remind the original problem:
> 
> Currently, console_unlock() prints messages from kernel printk buffer to
> console while the buffer is non-empty. When serial console is attached,
> printing is slow and thus other CPUs in the system have plenty of time
> to append new messages to the buffer while one CPU is printing. Thus the
> CPU can spend unbounded amount of time doing printing in
> console_unlock().
> This is especially serious when printk() gets called under some critical
> spinlock or with interrupts disabled.
> 
> In practice users have observed a CPU can spend tens of seconds printing
> in console_unlock() (usually during boot when hundreds of SCSI devices
> are discovered) resulting in RCU stalls (CPU doing printing doesn't
> reach quiescent state for a long time), softlockup reports (IPIs for the
> printing CPU don't get served and thus other CPUs are spinning waiting
> for the printing CPU to process IPIs), and eventually a machine death
> (as messages from stalls and lockups append to printk buffer faster than
> we are able to print). So these machines are unable to boot with serial
> console attached. Also during artificial stress testing SATA disk
> disappears from the system because its interrupts aren't served for too
> long.
> 
> This series addresses the problem in the following way: If CPU has printed
> more that printk_offload (defaults to 1000) characters, it wakes up one
> of dedicated printk kthreads (we don't use workqueue because that has
> deadlock potential if printk was called from workqueue code). Once we find
> out kthread is spinning on a lock, we stop printing, drop console_sem, and
> let kthread continue printing. Since there are two printing kthreads, they
> will pass printing between them and thus no CPU gets hogged by printing.
> 
> Changes since the last posting [3]:
> * I have replaced the state machine to pass printing and spinning on
>   console_sem with a simple spinlock which makes the code
>   somewhat easier to read and verify.
> * Some of the patches were merged so I dropped them.
> 
> 								Honza

Thanks Jan. I would like to add that the problem described here is further aggravated
in virtual machines and the solution proposed here effectively solves the problem.

Regards,

K. Y
> 
> [1]
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2flkml.or
> g%2flkml%2f2015%2f7%2f8%2f215&data=01%7c01%7ckys%40microsoft.com
> %7c0be64449b7734417b58e08d2a8ac4215%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=tIGC5%2bms890etIzVbaj3x3B3XUrgC54C79vaniZzRIY%3d
> [2]
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmarc.inf
> o%2f%3fl%3dlinux-
> kernel%26m%3d143929238407816%26w%3d2&data=01%7c01%7ckys%40micr
> osoft.com%7c0be64449b7734417b58e08d2a8ac4215%7c72f988bf86f141af91a
> b2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=DFEq8NILXnLGTo%2fscI5zjzWrX9%2buJlj9lmo8r
> ahuIt0%3d
> [3]
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2flkml.or
> g%2flkml%2f2014%2f3%2f17%2f68&data=01%7c01%7ckys%40microsoft.com
> %7c0be64449b7734417b58e08d2a8ac4215%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011
> db47%7c1&sdata=j9uJalk7Cup0q78gl8rgIIjySU0l7HIwk1AhYJ5cAd4%3d
--
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/