linux-kernel - Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second (was [v13] support "task

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: <20160811234734.GJ3482@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:47:34 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
	Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...lanox.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: clocksource_watchdog causing scheduling of timers every second
 (was [v13] support "task_isolation" mode)

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 06:02:34PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > > With modern Intel we could run it on one CPU per package I think, but at
> > > the same time, too much in NOHZ_FULL assumes the TSC is indeed sane so
> > > it doesn't make sense to me to keep the watchdog running, when it
> > > triggers it would also have to kill all NOHZ_FULL stuff, which would
> > > probably bring the entire machine down..
> >
> > Well, you -could- force a very low priority CPU-bound task to run on
> > all nohz_full CPUs.  Not necessarily a good idea, but a relatively
> > non-intrusive response to that particular error condition.
> 
> Given that we want the cpu only to run the user task I would think that is
> not a good idea.

Heh!  The only really good idea is for clocks to be reliably in sync.

But if they go out of sync, what do you want to do instead?

							Thanx, Paul