linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/12] timer: Report ignored local enqueue in nohz mode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a1bac9f6-cc67-943d-0f88-aad2f2b46bd7@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:58:54 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...nel.org,
        jiangshanlai@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/12] timer: Report ignored local enqueue in
 nohz mode

On 3/4/2021 1:23 AM, paulmck@...nel.org wrote:
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>
> Enqueuing a local timer after the tick has been stopped will result in
> the timer being ignored until the next random interrupt.
>
> Perform sanity checks to report these situations.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>

Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>


> ---
>   kernel/sched/core.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index ca2bb62..4822371 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -674,6 +674,26 @@ int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
>   	return cpu;
>   }
>   
> +static void wake_idle_assert_possible(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
> +	/* Timers are re-evaluated after idle IRQs */
> +	if (in_hardirq())
> +		return;
> +	/*
> +	 * Same as hardirqs, assuming they are executing
> +	 * on IRQ tail. Ksoftirqd shouldn't reach here
> +	 * as the timer base wouldn't be idle. And inline
> +	 * softirq processing after a call to local_bh_enable()
> +	 * within idle loop sound too fun to be considered here.
> +	 */
> +	if (in_serving_softirq())
> +		return;
> +
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE("Late timer enqueue may be ignored\n");
> +#endif
> +}
> +
>   /*
>    * When add_timer_on() enqueues a timer into the timer wheel of an
>    * idle CPU then this timer might expire before the next timer event
> @@ -688,8 +708,10 @@ static void wake_up_idle_cpu(int cpu)
>   {
>   	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>   
> -	if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> +	if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> +		wake_idle_assert_possible();
>   		return;
> +	}
>   
>   	if (set_nr_and_not_polling(rq->idle))
>   		smp_send_reschedule(cpu);