linux-kernel - Re: [kcov] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [swapper/0:1]

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2c5e3996-d50b-416c-92aa-a554085cd656@virtuozzo.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Apr 2018 22:52:07 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [kcov] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s!
 [swapper/0:1]

On 04/20/2018 07:45 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 05:08:23PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/19/2018 06:01 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> FYI this happens in mainline kernel 4.17.0-rc1.
>>> It at least dates back to v4.8 .
>>>
>>> [   25.697463]
>>> [   25.697463] Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
>>> [   25.736615] find_next_bit:                30203201 ns, 163965 iterations
>>> [   25.783266] find_next_zero_bit:           45554622 ns, 163716 iterations
>>> [   25.832480] find_last_bit:                48003878 ns, 163965 iterations
>>> [   52.050031] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [swapper/0:1]
>>> [   52.050031] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.17.0-rc1 #210
>>> [   52.050031] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014
>>> [   52.050031] RIP: 0010:__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc+0x65/0x66:
>>> 						__sanitizer_cov_trace_pc at kernel/kcov.c:111
>>> [   52.050031] RSP: 0000:ffff88000fd43e40 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffff13
>>> [   52.050031] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000017
>>> [   52.050031] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff88000fd3e000 RDI: 0000000000000002
>>> [   52.050031] RBP: 0000000000050000 R08: 0000000000000008 R09: 0000000000000000
>>> [   52.050031] R10: ffff88000fd3e000 R11: 00000000222e2c32 R12: ffffffff85565d90
>>> [   52.050031] R13: 0000000000030f80 R14: 0000000000030f80 R15: 0000000000000000
>>> [   52.050031] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88001f600000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>> [   52.050031] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>> [   52.050031] CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000003c6a000 CR4: 00000000000006b0
>>> [   52.050031] Call Trace:
>>> [   52.050031]  find_first_bit+0x66/0x7c:
>>> 						find_first_bit at lib/find_bit.c:106 (discriminator 1)
>>> [   52.050031]  test_find_first_bit+0x3a/0x93
>>
>>
>> I suppose test_find_first_bit() needs a little more than zero cond_resched() calls.
> 
> Or just decrease length of bitmap in this test. find_first_bit() takes
> lion's share of time of the test.
>  

Yeah, that would be better.

> Start testing find_bit() with random-filled bitmap
> find_next_bit:          240043 cycles,  164062 iterations
> find_next_zero_bit:     312848 cycles,  163619 iterations
> find_last_bit:          193748 cycles,  164062 iterations
> find_first_bit:      177720874 cycles,  164062 iterations
> 
> I'll test the patch and send it soon if you OK with it.
> 
> Yury
>