linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in wake_up_page

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: <bd2d09ea-47d1-c0a7-8d4d-604bb4bc28bc@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:13:29 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] sched/wait: Introduce lock breaker in
 wake_up_page_bit

On 08/29/2017 09:01 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...el.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is an ALMOST COMPLETELY UNTESTED forward-port of those two
>>> patches, now without that nasty WQ_FLAG_ARRIVALS logic, because we now
>>> always put the new entries at the end of the waitqueue.
>>
>> The patches fix the long wait issue.
>>
>> Tested-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> 
> Ok. I'm not 100% comfortable applying them at rc7, so let me think
> about it. There's only one known load triggering this, and by "known"
> I mean "not really known" since we don't even know what the heck it
> does outside of intel and whoever your customer is.
> 
> So I suspect I'll apply the patches next merge window, and we can
> maybe mark them for stable if this actually ends up mattering.
> 
> Can you tell if the problem is actually hitting _production_ use or
> was some kind of benchmark stress-test?
> 
> 

It is affecting not a production use, but the customer's acceptance
test for their systems.  So I suspect it is a stress test.

Tim