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:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:56:34 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
To:     Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>,
        "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" <elliott@....com>
CC:     "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "irqbalance@...ts.infradead.org" <irqbalance@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "Kashyap Desai" <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
        Sathya Prakash Veerichetty <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
        Chaitra Basappa <chaitra.basappa@...adcom.com>,
        Suganath Prabu Subramani 
        <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: Observing Softlockup's while running heavy IOs

On 08/19/2016 04:44 AM, Sreekanth Reddy wrote:
> [  +0.000439] __blk_mq_run_hw_queue() finished after 10058 ms
> [ ... ]
> [  +0.000005]  [<ffffffff810c392b>] ? finish_task_switch+0x6b/0x200
> [  +0.000006]  [<ffffffff8176dabc>] __schedule+0x36c/0x950
> [  +0.000002]  [<ffffffff8176e0d7>] schedule+0x37/0x80
> [  +0.000006]  [<ffffffff81116a1c>] futex_wait_queue_me+0xbc/0x120
> [  +0.000004]  [<ffffffff81116da9>] futex_wait+0x119/0x270
> [  +0.000004]  [<ffffffff81116800>] ? futex_wake+0x90/0x180
> [  +0.000003]  [<ffffffff81118d6b>] do_futex+0x12b/0xb00
> [  +0.000005]  [<ffffffff810d348e>] ? set_next_entity+0x23e/0x440
> [  +0.000007]  [<ffffffff810136f1>] ? __switch_to+0x261/0x4b0
> [  +0.000004]  [<ffffffff811197c1>] SyS_futex+0x81/0x180
> [  +0.000002]  [<ffffffff8176e0d7>] ? schedule+0x37/0x80
> [  +0.000004]  [<ffffffff817721ae>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x71

Hello Sreekanth,

If a "soft lockup" is reported that often means that kernel code is 
iterating too long in a loop without giving up the CPU. Inserting a 
cond_resched() call in such loops usually resolves these soft lockup 
complaints. However, your latest e-mail shows that the soft lockup 
complaint was reported on other code than __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(). I'm 
afraid this means that the CPU on which the soft lockup was reported is 
hammered so hard with interrupts that hardly any time remains for the 
scheduler to run code on that CPU. You will have to follow Robert 
Elliott's advice and reduce the time that is spent per CPU in interrupt 
context.

Bart.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ