Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:56:03 -0500 | From | Russ Anderson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: Avoid intermixing cpu dump_stack output on multi-processor systems |
| |
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 07:54:07PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 06:11:35PM -0500, Russ Anderson wrote: > > > > In this case, I am just using the hardware NMI, which sends the NMI > > > > signal to each logical cpu. Since each cpu receives the NMI at nearly > > > > the exact same time, they end up in dump_stack() at the same time. > > > > Without some form of locking, trace lines from different cpus end > > > > up intermixed, making it impossible to tell what any individual > > > > cpu was doing. > > > > > > I forgot the original reasons for having the NMI go to each CPU instead of > > > just the boot CPU (commit 78c06176), but it seems like if you revert that > > > patch and have the nmi handler just call trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() > > > instead (which does stack trace locking for pretty output), that would > > > solve your problem, no? That locking is safe because it is only called in > > > the NMI context. > > > > We want NMI to hit all the cpus at the same time to get a coherent > > snapshot of what is happening in the system at one point in time. > > Sending an IPI one cpu at a time skews the results, and doesn't > > Oh, I thought it was broadcasting, but I see the apic_uv code serializes > it. Though getting all those hardware locks in the nmi handler has to be > time consuming? But I know you guys did some tricks to speed that up. > > > really solve the problem of multiple cpus going into dump_stack() > > at the same time. NMI isn't the only possible caller of dump_stack(). > > I am curious, your NMI handler has locking wrapped around dump_stack, > shouldn't that serialize the output the way you want it? Why isn't that > working?
Yes, you're right, it does. It is working. I'd forgotten that the community kernel has uv_nmi_lock in uv_handle_nmi. Must be working too much with distro kernels. :-) But that doesn't help for all the other code paths than call dump_stack.
> > FWIW, "Wait for up to 10 seconds for all CPUs to do the backtrace" on > > a 4096 cpu system isn't long enough. :-) > > Good point. :-) > > > > > > Whereas the lock you are proposing can be called in a mixture of NMI and > > > IRQ which could cause deadlocks I believe. > > > > Since this is a lock just around the dump_stack printk, would > > checking for forward progress and a timeout to catch any possible > > deadlock be sufficient? In the unlikely case of a deadlock the > > lock gets broken and some of the cpu backtraces get intermixed. > > That is still a huge improvement over the current case where > > all of the backtraces get intermixed. > > I saw your new patch based on Frederick's input. It seems to take care of > deadlock situations though you run into the starving lock problem that > ticketed spinlocks solved. Which is why I am curious why moving the > locking one layer up to the NMI handler (which is where it is currently), > didn't fix your problem.
Locking in dump_stack would remove the need for uv_nmi_lock.
-- Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc rja@sgi.com
| |