netdev - Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330 __netif

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]

Date:	Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:59:46 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jarkao2@...il.com,
	Larry.Finger@...inger.net, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
	__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 20:38 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thursday 24 July 2008 20:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 02:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:27:05 +0200
> > >
> > > > Well, not only lockdep, taking a very large number of locks is
> > > > expensive as well.
> > >
> > > Right now it would be on the order of 16 or 32 for
> > > real hardware.
> > >
> > > Much less than the scheduler currently takes on some
> > > of my systems, so currently you are the pot calling the
> > > kettle black. :-)
> >
> > One nit, and then I'll let this issue rest :-)
> >
> > The scheduler has a long lock dependancy chain (nr_cpu_ids rq locks),
> > but it never takes all of them at the same time. Any one code path will
> > at most hold two rq locks.
> 
> Aside from lockdep, is there a particular problem with taking 64k locks
> at once? (in a very slow path, of course) I don't think it causes a
> problem with preempt_count, does it cause issues with -rt kernel?

PI-chains might explode I guess, Thomas?

Besides that, I just have this voice in my head telling me that
minimizing the number of locks held is a good thing.

> Hey, something kind of cool (and OT) I've just thought of that we can
> do with ticket locks is to take tickets for 2 (or 64K) nested locks,
> and then wait for them both (all), so the cost is N*lock + longest spin,
> rather than N*lock + N*avg spin.
> 
> That would mean even at the worst case of a huge amount of contention
> on all 64K locks, it should only take a couple of ms to take all of
> them (assuming max spin time isn't ridiculous).
> 
> Probably not the kind of feature we want to expose widely, but for
> really special things like the scheduler, it might be a neat hack to
> save a few cycles ;) Traditional implementations would just have
> #define spin_lock_async	      spin_lock
> #define spin_lock_async_wait  do {} while (0)
> 
> Sorry it's offtopic, but if I didn't post it, I'd forget to. Might be
> a fun quick hack for someone.

It might just be worth it for double_rq_lock() - if you can sort out the
deadlock potential Miklos just raised ;-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html