linux-kernel - Re: livelock with hrtimer cpu

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: <63fae7b2ef8dc4cc67928329cf7fcb60@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 05:55:28 -0700
From:   Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, robin.murphy@....com,
        ynorov@...iumnetworks.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: livelock with hrtimer cpu_base->lock

On 2018-10-10 09:49, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Prasad,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:56:14PM -0700, Sodagudi Prasad wrote:
>> This is regarding - thread "try to fix contention between 
>> expire_timers and
>> try_to_del_timer_sync".
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/28/172
>> 
>> I think this live lockup issue was discussed earlier but the final set 
>> of
>> changes were not concluded.
> 
> Well we basically need a way to pick a value for 
> CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD.
> Do you have any ideas? It could be determined at runtime if necessary.
> 
Hi Will,

Please share what are values need to be tried for 
CPU_RELAX_WFE_THRESHOLD.

  It would be great if it can be determined from runtime.  Please let me 
know
if any testing need to be done with dynamic detection patch.

-Thanks, Prasad

>> I would like to check whether you have new updates on this issue or 
>> not.
>> This problem is observed with 4.14 .64 stable kernel too.
>> We see this problem 2 times in overnight testing.
>> 
>> I have to add the following code to avoid live lock. I am thinking 
>> that
>> fixing this at the cpu_relax() level.
>> 
>> +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
>> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/timer.h>
>>  #include <linux/freezer.h>
>>  #include <linux/compat.h>
>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
>> 
>>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>> 
>> @@ -152,6 +153,7 @@ struct hrtimer_clock_base *lock_hrtimer_base(const
>> struct hrtimer *timer,
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&base->cpu_base->lock, *flags);
>>                 }
>>                 cpu_relax();
>> +               udelay(1);
>>         }
>>  }
>> 
>> @@ -1067,6 +1069,7 @@ int hrtimer_cancel(struct hrtimer *timer)
>>                 if (ret >= 0)
>>                         return ret;
>>                 cpu_relax();
>> +               udelay(1);
>>         }
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hrtimer_cancel);
> 
> This is just another bodge and likely to hurt in places where 1us is
> excessive because there isn't contention.
> 
> Will

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project