netdev - Re: [PATCH] dst: call cond_resched() in dst_gc

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]

Message-Id: <20100208152606.91c55722.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:26:06 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dst: call cond_resched() in dst_gc_task()

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:32:40 +0100
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:

> [PATCH] dst: call cond_resched() in dst_gc_task()
> 
> On some workloads, it is quite possible to get a huge dst list to
> process in dst_gc_task(), and trigger soft lockup detection.
> 
> Fix is to call cond_resched(), as we run in process context.
> 
> Reported-by: Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
> Tested-by: Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/dst.c b/net/core/dst.c
> index 57bc4d5..cb1b348 100644
> --- a/net/core/dst.c
> +++ b/net/core/dst.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/string.h>
>  #include <linux/types.h>
>  #include <net/net_namespace.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>  
>  #include <net/dst.h>
>  
> @@ -79,6 +80,7 @@ loop:
>  	while ((dst = next) != NULL) {
>  		next = dst->next;
>  		prefetch(&next->next);
> +		cond_resched();
>  		if (likely(atomic_read(&dst->__refcnt))) {
>  			last->next = dst;
>  			last = dst;

Gad.  Am I understanding this right?  The softlockup threshold is sixty
seconds!

I assume that this function spends most of its time walking over busy
entries?  Is a more powerful data structure needed?

--
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