On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:35:35PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 08:28:06AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 02:26:49PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:24:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 10:36:00AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad
> > > > > commit is
> > > > >
> > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
> > > > > master
> > > > >
> > > > > commit 8704baab9bc848b58c129fed6b591bb84ec02f41
> > > > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > AuthorDate: Thu Dec 31 18:33:22 2015 -0800
> > > > > Commit: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > CommitDate: Thu Mar 31 13:37:38 2016 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > > rcutorture: Add RCU grace-period performance tests
> > > > >
> > > > > This commit adds a new rcuperf module that carries out simple
> > > > > performance
> > > > > tests of RCU grace periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > >
> > > > ???
> > > >
> > > > This commit adds a default-n performance-test module. I don't believe
> > >
> > > I think the robot was using a !SMP && CONFIG_TORTURE_TEST=y &&
> > > CONFIG_RCU_PERF_TEST=y configuration ;-)
> > >
> > > > that this would result in boot failures. False bisection?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The code triggering the warning is:
> > >
> > > WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> > >
> > > , so rcu_gp_is_normal() is true because we are using TINY RCU, moreover
> > > the default value of gp_exp for *rcuperf* is also true (whereas the one
> > > for rcutorture is false). That's why the warnning was triggered.
> > >
> > > It happened in the boot progress because rcu_perf_writer threads were
> > > created and ran via module init function rcu_perf_init().
> > >
> > > Maybe we'd better change the defaut value of gp_exp for rcuperf?
> >
> > Or make the default depend on CONFIG_TINY_RCU. Or downgrade the
> > WARN_ON() to soething that results in torture-test failure but does
> > not cause 0day to complain. Or...
> >
>
> So I think a better is we
>
> 1. set the default value to false (to align with rcutorture)
>
> and
>
> 2. downgrade the WARN_ON() to torture-test failures, because those
> are not kernel bugs.
>
> Here is a patch for further discussion:
This patch looks good to me, given a little editing of the commit log.
(See below for error string suggestion.)
Other thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
> ------------------------->8
> Subject: [PATCH] rcuperf: Don't treat gp_exp mis-setting as a kernel warning
>
> 0day found a boot warning triggered in rcu_perf_writer() on !SMP kernel:
>
> WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
>
> , which turned out to be caused by the default value of gp_exp.
>
> However, the reason of the warning is only mis-setting, which should be
> handled inside rcuperf module rather than treated as a kernel warning.
>
> Therefore this patch moves the WARN_ON from rcu_perf_writer() and
> handles those checkings in rcu_perf_init(), which could also save the
> checkings for each writer.
>
> Moreover, this patch changes the default value of gp_exp to 1) align
> with rcutorture tests and 2) make the default setting work for all RCU
> implementations by default.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
> Fixes:
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/57411b10.mfvg0+agcrmxgtcj%fengguang...@intel.com
> ---
> kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> index 3cee0d8393ed..1dc2bd1de4b6 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Paul E. McKenney
> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>");
> #define VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING(s) \
> do { if (verbose) pr_alert("%s" PERF_FLAG "!!! %s\n", perf_type, s); }
> while (0)
>
> -torture_param(bool, gp_exp, true, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
> +torture_param(bool, gp_exp, false, "Use expedited GP wait primitives");
> torture_param(int, holdoff, 10, "Holdoff time before test start (s)");
> torture_param(int, nreaders, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads");
> torture_param(int, nwriters, -1, "Number of RCU updater threads");
> @@ -363,8 +363,6 @@ rcu_perf_writer(void *arg)
> u64 *wdpp = writer_durations[me];
>
> VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("rcu_perf_writer task started");
> - WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp);
> - WARN_ON(rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp);
> WARN_ON(!wdpp);
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
> sp.sched_priority = 1;
> @@ -631,6 +629,16 @@ rcu_perf_init(void)
> firsterr = -ENOMEM;
> goto unwind;
> }
> + if (rcu_gp_is_expedited() && !rcu_gp_is_normal() && !gp_exp) {
> + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure normal grace periods
> when all the grace periods are expedited");
"All grace periods expedited, no normal ones to measure!"
> + firsterr = -EINVAL;
> + goto unwind;
> + }
> + if (rcu_gp_is_normal() && gp_exp) {
> + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_ERRSTRING("try to measure expedited grace
> periods when all the expedited ones fall back to the normal ones");
"All grace periods normal, no expedited ones to measure!"
> + firsterr = -EINVAL;
> + goto unwind;
> + }
> for (i = 0; i < nrealwriters; i++) {
> writer_durations[i] =
> kcalloc(MAX_MEAS, sizeof(*writer_durations[i]),
> --
> 2.8.2
>
