| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20160630132401.GT4650@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 06:24:01 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab:
lockless decision to grow cache)
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:58:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Joonsoo,
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:12:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 07:52:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:54:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> > >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:47:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > [ . . . ]
> >> > >
> >> > >> > @@ -4720,11 +4720,18 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> >> > >> > pr_info(" ");
> >> > >> > level = rnp->level;
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >> > - pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> >> > >> > + pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> >> > >> > + rnp->qsmask,
> >> > >> > + rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >> > pr_cont("\n");
> >> > >> > }
> >> > >>
> >> > >> For me it always crashes during the 37th call of synchronize_sched() in
> >> > >> setup_kmem_cache_node(), which is the first call after secondary CPU bring up.
> >> > >> With your and my debug code, I get:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> >> > >> CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> >> > >> Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> >> > >> cnt = 36, sync
> >> > >> CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> >> > >> Brought up 2 CPUs
> >> > >> SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> >> > >> CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> >> > >> rcu_node tree layout dump
> >> > >> 0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you for running this!
> >> > >
> >> > > OK, so RCU knows about both CPUs (the "0x3"), and the previous
> >> > > grace period has seen quiescent states from both of them (the "0x0").
> >> > > That would indicate that your synchronize_sched() showed up when RCU was
> >> > > idle, so it had to start a new grace period. It also rules out failure
> >> > > modes where RCU thinks that there are more CPUs than really exist.
> >> > > (Don't laugh, such things have really happened.)
> >> > >
> >> > >> devtmpfs: initialized
> >> > >> VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> >> > >> clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> >> > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I hope it helps. Thanks!
> >> > >
> >> > > I am going to guess that this was the first grace period since the second
> >> > > CPU came online. When there only on CPU online, synchronize_sched()
> >> > > is a no-op.
> >> > >
> >> > > OK, this showed some things that aren't a problem. What might the
> >> > > problem be?
> >> > >
> >> > > o The grace-period kthread has not yet started. It -should- start
> >> > > at early_initcall() time, but who knows? Adding code to print
> >> > > out that kthread's task_struct address.
> >> > >
> >> > > o The grace-period kthread might not be responding to wakeups.
> >> > > Checking this requires that a grace period be in progress,
> >> > > so please put a call_rcu_sched() just before the call to
> >> > > rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(). (Sample code below.) Adding code
> >> > > to my patch to print out more GP-kthread state as well.
> >> > >
> >> > > o One of the CPUs might not be responding to RCU. That -should-
> >> > > result in an RCU CPU stall warning, so I will ignore this
> >> > > possibility for the moment.
> >> > >
> >> > > That said, do you have some way to determine whether scheduling
> >> > > clock interrupts are really happening? Without these interrupts,
> >> > > no RCU CPU stall warnings.
> >> >
> >> > I believe there are no clocksources yet. The jiffies clocksource is the first
> >> > clocksource found, and that happens after the first call to
> >> > synchronize_sched(), cfr. my dmesg snippet above.
> >> >
> >> > In a working boot:
> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/available_clocksource
> >> > e0180000.timer jiffies
> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> >> > e0180000.timer
> >>
> >> Ah! But if there is no jiffies clocksource, then schedule_timeout()
> >> and friends will never return, correct? If so, I guarantee you that
> >> synchronize_sched() will unconditionally hang.
> >>
> >> So if I understand correctly, the fix is to get the jiffies clocksource
> >> running before the first call to synchronize_sched().
> >
> > If so, following change would be sufficient.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > ------>8-------
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > index 555e21f..4f6471f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
> > return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
> > }
> >
> > -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> >
> > struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
> > {
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> While this does move jiffies clocksource initialization before secondary CPU
> bringup, it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or synchronize_sched():
>
> CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> cnt = 36, sync
> clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> Brought up 2 CPUs
> SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> jiffies: 0xffff8ad0 GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
> rcu_node tree layout dump
> 0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
This is in fact the initial state for RCU grace periods. In other words,
all the earlier calls to synchronize_sched() likely happened while there
was only one CPU online.
> devtmpfs: initialized
> VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
Could you please add the call_rcu() and timed delay as described in my
earlier email? That would hopefully help me see the state of the stalled
grace period.
Thanx, Paul
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists