linux-kernel - Re: Fix 80d20d35af1e ("nohz: Fix local_timer_softirq_pending()") may have revealed another problem

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: <96aa7901-10a2-e0c3-d7d6-10e8b1a19354@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Dec 2018 22:11:09 +0100
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: Fix 80d20d35af1e ("nohz: Fix local_timer_softirq_pending()") may
 have revealed another problem

On 15.10.2018 22:58, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 28.09.2018 15:18, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 06:05:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:06:32PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>> I tested it and Frederic is right, it doesn't help. Can it be somehow related to
>>>>> the cpu being brought down during suspend? Because I get the warning only during
>>>>> suspend when the cpu is inactive already (but still online).
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to tell, I haven't been able to reproduce on suspend to disk/mem.
>>>>
>>>> Does this script eventually trigger it after some time?
>>>
>>> Any update to this?
>>
>> Heiner? Can you please test the script I sent to you?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> Sorry, took some time .. And yes, running your script triggers the message too.
> 
> [   25.646015] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.646044] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.664491] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.679299] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.679329] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.698449] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.711698] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.711727] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.729185] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202
> [   25.729229] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202
> [   25.730759] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.744053] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.744083] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.762520] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.776834] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.776863] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.794189] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202
> [   25.796672] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.805970] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.805999] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.827360] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.839043] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.839073] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.858184] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 202
> [   25.862182] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> [   25.873759] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
> [   25.873789] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x2
> [   25.893385] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> 
Almost forgot about his topic, but the warning is still there.
Has there been any progress in analysis?