linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Handle case where throttle_active_work() is called on behalf of an offline 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 01:46:43 -0800
From:   Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     tony.luck@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Handle case where
 throttle_active_work() is called on behalf of an offline CPU

On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 20:25 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> > Which is wrong as well. Trying to "fix" it in the work queue
> > callback is
> > papering over the root cause.
> > 
> > Why is any work scheduled on an outgoing CPU after this CPU
> > executed
> > thermal_throttle_offline()?
> > 
> > When thermal_throttle_offline() is invoked the cpu bound work
> > queues are
> > still functional and thermal_throttle_offline() cancels outstanding
> > work.
> > 
> > So no, please fix the root cause not the symptom.
> 
> And if you look at thermal_throttle_online() then you'll notice that
> it
> is asymetric vs. thermal_throttle_offline().
> 
> Also you want to do cancel_delayed_work_sync() and not just
> cancel_delayed_work() because only the latter guarantees that the
> work
> is not enqueued anymore while the former does not take running or
> self
> requeueing work into account.
> 
> Something like the untested patch below.
I tested this patch.
After simulating 20 million thermal interrupts and online/offline test
for 12+ hours,  don't see the issue.

So this change fixed the issue.

I can send change on your behalf or you can add
Tested-by: Pandruvada, Srinivas <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks,
Srinivas

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> ---
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/therm_throt.c
> @@ -487,8 +487,12 @@ static int thermal_throttle_offline(unsi
>  	struct thermal_state *state = &per_cpu(thermal_state, cpu);
>  	struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
>  
> -	cancel_delayed_work(&state->package_throttle.therm_work);
> -	cancel_delayed_work(&state->core_throttle.therm_work);
> +	/* Mask the thermal vector before draining evtl. pending work
> */
> +	l = apic_read(APIC_LVTTHMR);
> +	apic_write(APIC_LVTTHMR, l | APIC_LVT_MASKED);
> +
> +	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&state->package_throttle.therm_work);
> +	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&state->core_throttle.therm_work);
>  
>  	state->package_throttle.rate_control_active = false;
>  	state->core_throttle.rate_control_active = false;