linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/4] timer/nohz: Fix timer/nohz woes

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801062215570.2376@nanos>
Date:   Sat, 6 Jan 2018 22:18:40 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] timer/nohz: Fix timer/nohz woes

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But after more than 1,000 hours of test runs, split roughly evenly
> among the above three scenarios, there is no statistically significant
> difference in error rate among them.  This means that there is some
> other bug lurking somewhere, and having the same appearance (lost timer).
> Were you guys ever able to reproduce this via rcutorture?

No.

We'll setup more testing on Monday. Which of the tests fails or at least
exposes the highest failure rate?

Thanks,

	tglx