Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Vyukov <> | Date | Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:28:16 +0200 | Subject | Re: INFO: task hung in perf_trace_event_unreg |
| |
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 02:54:20PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Hello, >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > syzbot hit the following crash on upstream commit >> >> >> >> >> > 0adb32858b0bddf4ada5f364a84ed60b196dbcda (Sun Apr 1 21:20:27 2018 +0000) >> >> >> >> >> > Linux 4.16 >> >> >> >> >> > syzbot dashboard link: >> >> >> >> >> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=2dbc55da20fa246378fd >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet. >> >> >> >> >> > Raw console output: >> >> >> >> >> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?id=5487937873510400 >> >> >> >> >> > Kernel config: >> >> >> >> >> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?id=-2374466361298166459 >> >> >> >> >> > compiler: gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170620 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit: >> >> >> >> >> > Reported-by: syzbot+2dbc55da20fa246378fd@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >> >> >> >> >> > It will help syzbot understand when the bug is fixed. See footer for >> >> >> >> >> > details. >> >> >> >> >> > If you forward the report, please keep this part and the footer. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > REISERFS warning (device loop4): super-6502 reiserfs_getopt: unknown mount >> >> >> >> >> > option "g �;e�K�>pquota" >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Might not hurt to look into the above, though perhaps this is just syzkaller >> >> >> >> > playing around with mount options. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > INFO: task syz-executor3:10803 blocked for more than 120 seconds. >> >> >> >> >> > Not tainted 4.16.0+ #10 >> >> >> >> >> > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >> >> >> >> >> > syz-executor3 D20944 10803 4492 0x80000002 >> >> >> >> >> > Call Trace: >> >> >> >> >> > context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:2862 [inline] >> >> >> >> >> > __schedule+0x8fb/0x1ec0 kernel/sched/core.c:3440 >> >> >> >> >> > schedule+0xf5/0x430 kernel/sched/core.c:3499 >> >> >> >> >> > schedule_timeout+0x1a3/0x230 kernel/time/timer.c:1777 >> >> >> >> >> > do_wait_for_common kernel/sched/completion.c:86 [inline] >> >> >> >> >> > __wait_for_common kernel/sched/completion.c:107 [inline] >> >> >> >> >> > wait_for_common kernel/sched/completion.c:118 [inline] >> >> >> >> >> > wait_for_completion+0x415/0x770 kernel/sched/completion.c:139 >> >> >> >> >> > __wait_rcu_gp+0x221/0x340 kernel/rcu/update.c:414 >> >> >> >> >> > synchronize_sched.part.64+0xac/0x100 kernel/rcu/tree.c:3212 >> >> >> >> >> > synchronize_sched+0x76/0xf0 kernel/rcu/tree.c:3213 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't think this is a perf issue. Looks like something is preventing >> >> >> >> >> rcu_sched from completing. If there's a CPU that is running in kernel >> >> >> >> >> space and never scheduling, that can cause this issue. Or if RCU >> >> >> >> >> somehow missed a transition into idle or user space. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The RCU CPU stall warning below strongly supports this position ... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I think this is this guy then: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=17f23b094cd80df750e5b0f8982c521ee6bcbf40 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> #syz dup: INFO: rcu detected stall in __process_echoes >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Seems likely to me! >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Looking retrospectively at the various hang/stall bugs that we have, I >> >> >> >> think we need some kind of priority between them. I.e. we have rcu >> >> >> >> stalls, spinlock stalls, workqueue hangs, task hangs, silent machine >> >> >> >> hang and maybe something else. It would be useful if they fire >> >> >> >> deterministically according to priorities. If there is an rcu stall, >> >> >> >> that's always detected as CPU stall. Then if there is no RCU stall, >> >> >> >> but a workqueue stall, then that's always detected as workqueue stall, >> >> >> >> etc. >> >> >> >> Currently if we have an RCU stall (effectively CPU stall), that can be >> >> >> >> detected either RCU stall or a task hung, producing 2 different bug >> >> >> >> reports (which is bad). >> >> >> >> One can say that it's only a matter of tuning timeouts, but at least >> >> >> >> task hung detector has a problem that if you set timeout to X, it can >> >> >> >> detect hung anywhere between X and 2*X. And on one hand we need quite >> >> >> >> large timeout (a minute may not be enough), and on the other hand we >> >> >> >> can't wait for an hour just to make sure that the machine is indeed >> >> >> >> dead (these things happen every few minutes). >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I suppose that we could have a global variable that was set to the >> >> >> > priority of the complaint in question, which would suppress all >> >> >> > lower-priority complaints. Might need to be opt-in, though -- I would >> >> >> > guess that not everyone is going to be happy with one complaint suppressing >> >> >> > others, especially given the possibility that the two complaints might >> >> >> > be about different things. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Or did you have something more deft in mind? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> syzkaller generally looks only at the first report. One does not know >> >> >> if/when there will be a second one, or the second one can be induced >> >> >> by the first one, and we generally want clean reports on a non-tainted >> >> >> kernel. So we don't just need to suppress lower priority ones, we need >> >> >> to produce the right report first. >> >> >> I am thinking maybe setting: >> >> >> - rcu stalls at 1.5 minutes >> >> >> - workqueue stalls at 2 minutes >> >> >> - task hungs at 2.5 minutes >> >> >> - and no output whatsoever at 3 minutes >> >> >> Do I miss anything? I think at least spinlocks. Should they go before >> >> >> or after rcu? >> >> > >> >> > That is what I know of, but the Linux kernel being what it is, there is >> >> > probably something more out there. If not now, in a few months. The >> >> > RCU CPU stall timeout can be set on the kernel-boot command line, but >> >> > you probably already knew that. >> >> >> >> Well, it's all based solely on a large number of patches and stopgaps. >> >> If we fix main problems for today, it's already good. >> > >> > Fair enough! >> > >> >> > Just for comparison, back in DYNIX/ptx days the RCU CPU stall timeout >> >> > was 1.5 -seconds-. ;-) >> >> >> >> Have you tried to instrument every basic block with a function call to >> >> collect coverage, check every damn memory access for validity, enable >> >> all thinkable and unthinkable debug configs and put the insanest load >> >> one can imagine from a swarm of parallel threads? It makes things a >> >> bit slower ;) >> > >> > Given that we wouldn't have had enough CPU or memory to accommodate >> > all of that back in DYNIX/ptx days, I am forced to answer "no". ;-) >> > >> >> >> This will require fixing task hung. Have not yet looked at workqueue detector. >> >> >> Does at least RCU respect the given timeout more or less precisely? >> >> > >> >> > Assuming that there is at least one CPU capable of taking scheduling-clock >> >> > interrupts, it should respect the timeout to within a few jiffies. >> >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> Speaking of stalls and rcu, we are seeing lots of crashes that go like this: >> >> INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU[ 404.992530] INFO: >> rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: >> INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU[ 454.347448] INFO: >> rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: >> INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU[ 396.073634] INFO: >> rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: >> >> or like this: >> >> INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU >> INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: >> 0-....: (125000 ticks this GP) idle=0ba/1/4611686018427387906 >> softirq=57641/57641 fqs=31151 >> 0-....: (125000 ticks this GP) idle=0ba/1/4611686018427387906 >> softirq=57641/57641 fqs=31151 >> (t=125002 jiffies g=31656 c=31655 q=910) >> >> INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU >> INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: >> 0-....: (125000 ticks this GP) idle=49a/1/4611686018427387906 >> softirq=65194/65194 fqs=31231 >> 0-....: (125000 ticks this GP) idle=49a/1/4611686018427387906 >> softirq=65194/65194 fqs=31231 >> (t=125002 jiffies g=34421 c=34420 q=1119) >> (detected by 1, t=125002 jiffies, g=34421, c=34420, q=1119) >> >> >> and then there is an unintelligible mess of 2 reports. Such crashes go >> to trash bin, because we can't even say which function hanged. It >> seems that in all cases 2 different rcu stall detection facilities >> race with each other. Is it possible to make them not race? > > How about the following (untested, not for mainline) patch? It suppresses > all but the "main" RCU flavor, which is rcu_sched for !PREEMPT builds and > rcu_preempt otherwise. Either way, this is the RCU flavor corresponding > to synchronize_rcu(). This works well in the common case where there > is almost always an RCU grace period in flight. > > One reason that this patch is not for mainline is that I am working on > merging the RCU-bh, RCU-preempt, and RCU-sched flavors into one thing, > at which point there won't be any races. But that might be a couple > merge windows away from now. > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index 381b47a68ac6..31f7818f2d63 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -1552,7 +1552,7 @@ static void check_cpu_stall(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp) > struct rcu_node *rnp; > > if ((rcu_cpu_stall_suppress && !rcu_kick_kthreads) || > - !rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp)) > + !rcu_gp_in_progress(rsp) || rsp != rcu_state_p) > return; > rcu_stall_kick_kthreads(rsp); > j = jiffies;
But doesn't they both relate to the same rcu flavor? They both say rcu_sched. I assumed that the difference is "self-detected" vs "on CPUs/tasks", i.e. on the current CPU vs on other CPUs.
| |