| 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: <CAMuHMdVTX3ojMsO5Mv++pA5r+st4yBTTo39QTbV-FxPmJ7fbkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:31:57 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
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)
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:58:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> 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.
I already did, cfr. "it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or
synchronize_sched()".
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