linux-kernel - Re: [Linux 5.18-rc1] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/fair.c:3355 update_blocked

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]

Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:38:16 +0200
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux 5.18-rc1] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at
 kernel/sched/fair.c:3355 update_blocked_averages

On 08/04/2022 08:03, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> On 4/7/22 5:52 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Looks like 21.10 finally abandoned legacy cgroup v1 and switched to v2
>> completely, which is now mounted under /sys/fs/cgroup .
>>
>> So your /sys/fs/cgroup/cgroup.controllers should contain `cpu`.
>>
>> Can you check if any of the cpu.max files under /sys/fs/cgroup has
>> something else then `max 100000` ?
> 
> I only see "max 100000" at the moment. Not sure if it may change when I
> do other activities anyway. If you need more information, I can always
> send it, so feel free to ask.

Looks like you saw the same issue which got fixed here:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220414015940.9537-1-kuyo.chang@mediatek.com

So nothing to do with CFS BW control. It's triggered by a task with very
low nice value and load_avg=1 during cfs_rq attach.