lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RCU idle CPU detection is broken in linux-next
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 01:41:18AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2012/9/25 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>:
> > 2012/9/25 Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>:
> >> On 09/25/2012 01:06 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>> 2012/9/25 Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>:
> >>>> On 09/25/2012 12:47 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>>>> - While I no longer see the warnings I've originally noticed, if I run with Paul's last debug patch I see the following warning:
> >>>>
> >>>> Correction: Original warnings are still there, they just got buried in the huge spew that was caused by additional debug warnings
> >>>> so I've missed them initially.
> >>>
> >>> Are they the same? Could you send me your dmesg?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Log is attached, you can go directly to 168.703017 when the warnings begin.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > So here is the first relevant warning:
> >
> > [ 168.703017] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 168.708117] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:502 rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0()
> > [ 168.710034] Pid: 7871, comm: trinity-child65 Tainted: G W
> > 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120924-sasha-00030-g71f256c #5
> > [ 168.710034] Call Trace:
> > [ 168.710034] <IRQ> [<ffffffff811c737a>] ? rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811078b6>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811079a5>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811c737a>] rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811c79cc>] rcu_eqs_exit+0x9c/0xb0
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811c7a4c>] rcu_user_exit+0x6c/0xd0
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff8106eb1f>] do_general_protection+0x1f/0x170
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff83a0e624>] ? restore_args+0x30/0x30
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff83a0e875>] general_protection+0x25/0x30
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff810a3f06>] ? native_read_msr_safe+0x6/0x20
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff81a0b34b>] __rdmsr_safe_on_cpu+0x2b/0x50
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff819ec971>] ? list_del+0x11/0x40
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811886dc>]
> > generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0xec/0x120
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff81151147>] ? account_system_vtime+0xd7/0x140
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff81096f72>]
> > smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x22/0x40
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff83a0fe2f>] call_function_single_interrupt+0x6f/0x80
> > [ 168.710034] <EOI> [<ffffffff83a0e5f4>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff811c7285>] ? rcu_user_enter+0x105/0x110
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff8107e06d>] syscall_trace_leave+0xfd/0x150
> > [ 168.710034] [<ffffffff83a0f1ef>] int_check_syscall_exit_work+0x34/0x3d
> > [ 168.710034] ---[ end trace fd408dd21b70b87c ]---
> >
> > This is an exception inside an interrupt, and the interrupt
> > interrupted RCU user mode.
> > And we have that nesting:
> >
> > rcu_irq_enter(); <--- irq entry
> > rcu_user_exit(); <--- exception entry
> >
> > And rcu_eqs_exit() doesn't handle that very well...
>
> So either I should return immediately from rcu_user_exit() if
> we are in an interrupt, or we make rcu_user_exit() able to nest
> on rcu_irq_enter() :)

Both of the two are eminently doable, with varying degrees of hackery.

What makes the most sense from an adaptive-idle viewpoint?

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-25 06:41    [W:0.101 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site