Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:58:56 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: "Dying CPU not properly vacated" splat |
| |
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 09:24:45AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:48:06PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > On 25/04/22 17:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:59:44PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > >> On 25/04/22 10:33, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > >> > > > >> > So what did rcu_torture_reader() do wrong here? ;-) > > >> > > > >> > > >> So on teardown, CPUHP_AP_SCHED_WAIT_EMPTY->sched_cpu_wait_empty() waits for > > >> the rq to be empty. Tasks must *not* be enqueued onto that CPU after that > > >> step has been run - if there are per-CPU tasks bound to that CPU, they must > > >> be unbound in their respective hotplug callback. > > >> > > >> For instance for workqueue.c, we have workqueue_offline_cpu() as a hotplug > > >> callback which invokes unbind_workers(cpu), the interesting bit being: > > >> > > >> for_each_pool_worker(worker, pool) { > > >> kthread_set_per_cpu(worker->task, -1); > > >> WARN_ON_ONCE(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(worker->task, cpu_possible_mask) < 0); > > >> } > > >> > > >> The rcu_torture_reader() kthreads aren't bound to any particular CPU are > > >> they? I can't find any code that would indicate they are - and in that case > > >> it means we have a problem with is_cpu_allowed() or related. > > > > > > I did not intend that the rcu_torture_reader() kthreads be bound, and > > > I am not seeing anything that binds them. > > > > > > Thoughts? (Other than that validating any alleged fix will be quite > > > "interesting".) > > > > IIUC the bogus scenario is is_cpu_allowed() lets one of those kthreads be > > enqueued on the outgoing CPU *after* CPUHP_AP_SCHED_WAIT_EMPTY.teardown() has > > been run, and hilarity ensues. > > > > The cpu_dying() condition should prevent a regular kthread from getting > > enqueued there, most of the details have been evinced from my brain but I > > recall we got the ordering conditions right... > > > > The only other "obvious" thing here is migrate_disable() which lets the > > enqueue happen, but then balance_push()->select_fallback_rq() should punt > > it away on context switch. > > > > I need to rediscover those paths, I don't see any obvious clue right now. > > Thank you for looking into this! > > The only thought that came to me was to record that is_cpu_allowed() > returned true do to migration being disabled, and then use that in later > traces, printk()s or whatever. > > My own favorite root-cause hypothesis was invalidated by the fact that > is_cpu_allowed() returns cpu_online(cpu) rather than just true. ;-)
And I hit this on two of fifteen TREE03 runs on a merge of -rcu with yesterday's linus/master. Might be a fluke, but I thought I should at least report it. This is the first time since my last email in this thread.
Thanx, Paul
| |