linux-kernel - Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler

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: <20160711224601.GJ4695@ubuntu>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:46:01 -0700
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	vlevenetz@...sol.com, vaibhav.hiremath@...aro.org,
	alex.elder@...aro.org, johan@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler

On 12-07-16, 00:44, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2016 03:35:01 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hi Sergey and Jan,
> > 
> > On 12-07-16, 00:44, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > right. apart from cases when the existing console_unlock() behaviour can
> > > simply "block" a process to flush the log_buf to slow serial consoles
> > > (regardless the  process execution context) and make the system less
> > > responsive, I have around ~10 absolutely different scenarios on my list that
> > > may cause soft/hard lockups, rcu stalls, oom-s, etc. and console_unlock() is
> > > the root cause there. the simplest ones involve heavy printk() usage, the
> > > trickier ones do not necessarily have anything that is abusing printk(): a
> > > moderate printk() pressure coming from other CPUs on the system and more or
> > > less active tty -> UART can do the trick, because uart interrupt service
> > > routine and call_console_drivers()->write() have to compete for the same
> > > uart port spin_lock. soft lockups are probably the most common problems,
> > > though, it's not all that easy to catch, because watchdog does not ring
> > > the bell straight after preempt_enable(), but from hrtimer interrupt, that
> > > happens approx every 4 seconds. by this time CPU can be somewhere far away
> > > from console_unlock(). I had an idea of doing watchdog soft lockup check
> > > from preempt_enable(), when it brings preempt_count down to zero, but not
> > > sure I can recall how well did it go.
> > 
> > Thanks for your feedback guys, and I have one more blocking issue
> > where I need your help/advice.
> > 
> > So, the excess printing in our case is done in parallel to system
> > suspend. And that can very much happen after all the non-boot CPUs are
> > offlined.
> > 
> > Sometimes, the platform doesn't come back after suspend. I have tried
> > enabling no-console-suspend and the last line it prints is:
> > 
> >         Disabling non-boot CPUs
> > 
> > And nothing after that at all. We have to forcefully reboot the phone
> > after that. Moving the prints to they synchronous way (using
> > echo 1 > /sys/module/printk/parameters/synchronous), fixes that issue.
> 
> But no_console_suspend is best-effort by design.

Yeah and I am not sure how should I go ahead about this issue now :)

> And *please* CC PM-related stuff to linux-pm.

Sure. I wasn't sure initially when this thread got started, that it is
a PM related stuff and so didn't do it. As it was all about printk and
hogging :)

-- 
viresh