Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:20:29 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: RCU idle CPU detection is broken in linux-next |
| |
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:09:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On 09/21/2012 05:18 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > On 09/21/2012 05:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:26:27PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > >>> On 09/21/2012 02:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >>>>> This might be unrelated, but I got the following dump as well when trinity > > >>>>>> decided it's time to reboot my guest: > > >>>> OK, sounds like we should hold off until you reproduce, then. > > >>> > > >>> I'm not sure what you mean. > > >>> > > >>> There are basically two issues I'm seeing now, which reproduce pretty much every > > >>> time: > > >>> > > >>> 1. The "using when idle" warning. > > >>> 2. The rcu related hangs during shutdown. > > >>> > > >>> The first one appears early on when I start fuzzing, the other one happens when > > >>> shutting down - so both of them are reproducible in the same session. > > >> > > >> Ah, I misunderstood the "reboot my guest" -- I thought that you were > > >> doing something like repeated modprobe/rmmod cycles on rcutorture while > > >> running the guest for an extended time period. That will teach me not > > >> to reply to email so soon after waking up. ;-) > > >> > > >> That said, #2 is expected behavior given the RCU CPU stall warnings in > > >> your Sept. 20 dmesg. This is because rcutorture does rcu_barrier() on > > >> the way out, which cannot complete if grace periods are not completing. > > >> And the later soft lockup is also likely a consequence of the stall, > > >> because CPU hotplug does a synchronize_sched() while holding the hotplug > > >> lock, which will then cause get_online_cpus() to hang. > > >> > > >> Looking further down, there are hung tasks that are waiting for a > > >> timeout, but this is also a consequence of the hang because they > > >> are waiting for MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT -- in other words, they are > > >> waiting to be killed at shutdown time. I could suppress this by using > > >> schedule_timeout_interruptible() in a loop in order to reduce the noise > > >> in this case. > > >> > > >> The remaining traces in that email are also consequences of the stall. > > >> > > >> So why the stall? > > >> > > >> Using RCU from a CPU that RCU believes to be idle can cause arbitrary > > >> bad behavior (possibly including stalls), but with very low probability. > > >> The reason that things can go arbitrarily bad is that RCU is ignoring > > >> the CPU, and thus not waiting for any RCU read-side critical sections. > > >> This could of course result in abitrary corruption of memory. The reason > > >> for the low probability is that grace periods tend to be long and RCU > > >> read-side critical sections tend to be short. > > >> > > >> It looks like you are running -next, which has RCU grace periods driven > > >> by a kthread. Is it possible that this kthread is not getting a chance > > >> to run (in fact, the "Stall ended before state dump start" is consistent > > >> with that possibility), but in that case I would expect to see a soft > > >> lockup from it. Furthermore, in that case, it would be expected to > > >> start running again as soon as things started going idle during shutdown. > > >> > > >> Or did the system somehow manage to stay busy despite being in shutdown? > > >> Or, for that matter, are you overcommitting the physical CPUs on your > > >> trinity test setup? > > > > > > Nope, I originally had 4 vcpus in the guest with the host running 4 physical > > > cpus, but I've also tested it with just 2 vcpus and still see the warnings. > > > > Some more info that might help, I'm also occasionally seeing: > > > > [ 42.389345] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 42.389348] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:375 rcu_eqs_enter+0x5c/0xc0() > > [ 42.389350] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G W > > 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378 > > Hmmm... So either RCU is losing count or some CPU that is already > marked as idle from RCU's perspective is trying to re-enter idle. > > This is helpful, thank you! It fits in nicely with the splat that > you got after applying Michael Wang's patch. Could you please try the > diagnostic patch below?
Also, could you please send me your full .config?
Thanx, Paul
> > [ 42.389351] Call Trace: > > [ 42.389354] [<ffffffff811c653c>] ? rcu_eqs_enter+0x5c/0xc0 > > [ 42.389356] [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0 > > [ 42.389359] [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 > > [ 42.389361] [<ffffffff811c653c>] rcu_eqs_enter+0x5c/0xc0 > > [ 42.389364] [<ffffffff811c66f3>] rcu_idle_enter+0x43/0xa0 > > [ 42.389366] [<ffffffff81078956>] cpu_idle+0x126/0x160 > > [ 42.389369] [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276 > > [ 42.389370] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64ee ]--- > > [ 42.389394] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 42.389396] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:350 rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x709/0x970() > > [ 42.389398] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G W > > 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378 > > [ 42.389399] Call Trace: > > [ 42.389402] [<ffffffff811c6019>] ? rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x709/0x970 > > [ 42.389405] [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0 > > [ 42.389407] [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 > > [ 42.389410] [<ffffffff811c6019>] rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x709/0x970 > > [ 42.389412] [<ffffffff811c658f>] rcu_eqs_enter+0xaf/0xc0 > > [ 42.389414] [<ffffffff811c66f3>] rcu_idle_enter+0x43/0xa0 > > [ 42.389417] [<ffffffff81078956>] cpu_idle+0x126/0x160 > > [ 42.389420] [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276 > > [ 42.389421] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64ef ]--- > > [ 42.389424] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 42.389426] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:527 rcu_eqs_exit+0x4f/0xb0() > > [ 42.389427] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G W > > 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378 > > [ 42.389428] Call Trace: > > [ 42.389431] [<ffffffff811c6d9f>] ? rcu_eqs_exit+0x4f/0xb0 > > [ 42.389433] [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0 > > [ 42.389436] [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 > > [ 42.389438] [<ffffffff811c6d9f>] rcu_eqs_exit+0x4f/0xb0 > > [ 42.389441] [<ffffffff811c6f13>] rcu_idle_exit+0x43/0xa0 > > [ 42.389443] [<ffffffff8107896d>] cpu_idle+0x13d/0x160 > > [ 42.389445] [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276 > > [ 42.389447] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64f0 ]--- > > [ 42.389448] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 42.389450] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:501 rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0() > > [ 42.389451] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G W > > 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378 > > [ 42.389452] Call Trace: > > [ 42.389455] [<ffffffff811c679a>] ? rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0 > > [ 42.389458] [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0 > > [ 42.389460] [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 > > [ 42.389462] [<ffffffff811c679a>] rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0 > > [ 42.389465] [<ffffffff811c6dec>] rcu_eqs_exit+0x9c/0xb0 > > [ 42.389467] [<ffffffff811c6f13>] rcu_idle_exit+0x43/0xa0 > > [ 42.389470] [<ffffffff8107896d>] cpu_idle+0x13d/0x160 > > [ 42.389472] [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276 > > [ 42.389474] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64f1 ]--- > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > index da14e5c..39d0aec 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > @@ -418,16 +418,22 @@ void cpu_idle(void) > pm_idle(); > > rcu_idle_exit(); > + WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > start_critical_timings(); > > /* In many cases the interrupt that ended idle > has already called exit_idle. But some idle > loops can be woken up without interrupt. */ > + WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > __exit_idle(); > + WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > } > > + WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > tick_nohz_idle_exit(); > + WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > preempt_enable_no_resched(); > + WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle()); > schedule(); > preempt_disable(); > }
| |