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  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]
Date:   Thu, 21 May 2020 07:05:44 +0530
From:   Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Liang Chen <cl@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: Use TASK_IDLE state for newly created kernel
 threads

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:18:58PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 05:25:09PM +0530, Pavankumar Kondeti wrote:
> > When kernel threads are created for later use, they will be in
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state until they are woken up. This results
> > in increased loadavg and false hung task reports. To fix this,
> > use TASK_IDLE state instead of TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE when
> > a kernel thread schedules out for the first time.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/kthread.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/kthread.c b/kernel/kthread.c
> > index bfbfa48..b74ed8e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/kthread.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kthread.c
> > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ static int kthread(void *_create)
> >  	current->vfork_done = &self->exited;
> >  
> >  	/* OK, tell user we're spawned, wait for stop or wakeup */
> > -	__set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > +	__set_current_state(TASK_IDLE);
> >  	create->result = current;
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Thread is going to call schedule(), do not preempt it,
> > @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static void __kthread_bind(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu, long state)
> >  
> >  void kthread_bind_mask(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask)
> >  {
> > -	__kthread_bind_mask(p, mask, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > +	__kthread_bind_mask(p, mask, TASK_IDLE);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ void kthread_bind_mask(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask)
> >   */
> >  void kthread_bind(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
> >  {
> > -	__kthread_bind(p, cpu, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > +	__kthread_bind(p, cpu, TASK_IDLE);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(kthread_bind);
> 
> It's as if people never read mailing lists:
> 	https://lore.kernel.org/r/DM6PR11MB3531D3B164357B2DC476102DDFC90@DM6PR11MB3531.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
> 
> Given that this is an identical resend of the previous patch, why are
> you doing so, and what has changed since that original rejection?
> 
I did not know that it is attempted before. Thanks for pointing to the
previous discussion. 

We have seen hung task reports from customers and it is due to a downstream
change which create bunch of kernel threads for later use. From Peter's
reply, I understood that one must wake up the kthread after creation and put
it in INTERRUPTIBLE sleep. I will pass on the message.

Thanks,
Pavan
-- 
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists