On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 08:45:54AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 12:30:30PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:43:28PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:37:09PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 03:48:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:12:07PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:20:59PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2020-12-09 21:27:32 [+0100], Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Add self tests for checking of RCU-tasks API functionality.
> > > > > > > > It covers:
> > > > > > > > - wait API functions;
> > > > > > > > - invoking/completion call_rcu_tasks*().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Self-tests are run when CONFIG_PROVE_RCU kernel parameter is
> > > > > > > > set.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just bisected to this commit. By booting with `threadirqs' I
> > > > > > > end up
> > > > > > > with:
> > > > > > > [ 0.176533] Running RCU-tasks wait API self tests
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No stall warning or so.
> > > > > > > It boots again with:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > > > > > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1489,6 +1489,7 @@ void __init console_on_rootfs(void)
> > > > > > > fput(file);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +void rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests(void);
> > > > > > > static noinline void __init kernel_init_freeable(void)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > @@ -1514,6 +1515,7 @@ static noinline void __init
> > > > > > > kernel_init_freeable(void)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > rcu_init_tasks_generic();
> > > > > > > do_pre_smp_initcalls();
> > > > > > > + rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests();
> > > > > > > lockup_detector_init();
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > smp_init();
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > > > > > > @@ -1266,7 +1266,7 @@ static void test_rcu_tasks_callback(struct
> > > > > > > rcu_head *rhp)
> > > > > > > rttd->notrun = true;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -static void rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests(void)
> > > > > > > +void rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests(void)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > pr_info("Running RCU-tasks wait API self tests\n");
> > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU
> > > > > > > @@ -1322,7 +1322,6 @@ void __init rcu_init_tasks_generic(void)
> > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > // Run the self-tests.
> > > > > > > - rcu_tasks_initiate_self_tests();
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_GENERIC */
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <ure...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies for the hassle! My testing clearly missed this combination
> > > > > of CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y and threadirqs=1. :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > But at least I can easily reproduce this hang as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --duration 2
> > > > > --configs "TREE03" --kconfig "CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y
> > > > > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y" --bootargs "threadirqs=1" --trust-make
> > > > >
> > > > > Sadly, I cannot take your patch because that simply papers over the
> > > > > fact that early boot use of synchronize_rcu_tasks() is broken in this
> > > > > particular configuration, which will likely eventually bite others now
> > > > > that init_kprobes() has been moved earlier in boot:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1b04fa990026 ("rcu-tasks: Move RCU-tasks initialization to before
> > > > > early_initcall()")
> > > > > Link:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/87eekfh80a....@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net/
> > > > > Fixes: 36dadef23fcc ("kprobes: Init kprobes in early_initcall")
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > We should be able to use call_rcu_tasks() in the *initcall()
> > > > > > callbacks.
> > > > > > The problem is that, ksoftirqd threads are not spawned by the time
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > an rcu_init_tasks_generic() is invoked:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > > > > > index c68d784376ca..e6106bb12b2d 100644
> > > > > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > > > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > > > > @@ -954,7 +954,6 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __init
> > > > > > __no_sanitize_address start_kernel(void)
> > > > > > rcu_init_nohz();
> > > > > > init_timers();
> > > > > > hrtimers_init();
> > > > > > - softirq_init();
> > > > > > timekeeping_init();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > @@ -1512,6 +1511,7 @@ static noinline void __init
> > > > > > kernel_init_freeable(void)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > init_mm_internals();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + softirq_init();
> > > > > > rcu_init_tasks_generic();
> > > > > > do_pre_smp_initcalls();
> > > > > > lockup_detector_init();
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> > > > > > index 9d71046ea247..cafa55c496d0 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > > > > > @@ -630,6 +630,7 @@ void __init softirq_init(void)
> > > > > > &per_cpu(tasklet_hi_vec, cpu).head;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + spawn_ksoftirqd();
> > > > >
> > > > > We need a forward reference to allow this to build, but with that
> > > > > added,
> > > > > my test case passes. Good show!
> > > > >
> > > > > > open_softirq(TASKLET_SOFTIRQ, tasklet_action);
> > > > > > open_softirq(HI_SOFTIRQ, tasklet_hi_action);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > @@ -732,7 +733,6 @@ static __init int spawn_ksoftirqd(void)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > -early_initcall(spawn_ksoftirqd);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * [ These __weak aliases are kept in a separate compilation unit,
> > > > > > so that
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > One likely problem is that there are almost certainly parts of the
> > > > > kernel
> > > > > that need softirq_init() to stay roughly where it is. So, is it
> > > > > possible
> > > > > to leave softirq_init() where it is, and to arrange for
> > > > > spawn_ksoftirqd()
> > > > > to be invoked just before rcu_init_tasks_generic() is called?
> > > >
> > > > This still seems worth trying (and doing so is next on my list), but
> > > > just
> > >
> > > And the patch below takes this approach, which also causes the tests to
> > > pass.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > commit f4cd768e341486655c8c196e1f2b48a4463541f3
> > > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>
> > > Date: Fri Feb 12 16:41:05 2021 -0800
> > >
> > > softirq: Don't try waking ksoftirqd before it has been spawned
> > >
> > > If there is heavy softirq activity, the softirq system will attempt
> > > to awaken ksoftirqd and will stop the traditional back-of-interrupt
> > > softirq processing. This is all well and good, but only if the
> > > ksoftirqd kthreads already exist, which is not the case during early
> > > boot, in which case the system hangs.
> > >
> > > One reproducer is as follows:
> > >
> > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --duration 2
> > > --configs "TREE03" --kconfig "CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y
> > > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y" --bootargs "threadirqs=1" --trust-make
> > >
> > > This commit therefore moves the spawning of the ksoftirqd kthreads
> > > earlier in boot. With this change, the above test passes.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de>
> > > Reported-by: Uladzislau Rezki <ure...@gmail.com>
> > > Inspired-by: Uladzislau Rezki <ure...@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > index bb8ff90..283a02d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > @@ -592,6 +592,8 @@ static inline struct task_struct
> > > *this_cpu_ksoftirqd(void)
> > > return this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +int spawn_ksoftirqd(void);
> > > +
> > > /* Tasklets --- multithreaded analogue of BHs.
> > >
> > > This API is deprecated. Please consider using threaded IRQs instead:
> > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > > index c68d784..99835bb 100644
> > > --- a/init/main.c
> > > +++ b/init/main.c
> > > @@ -1512,6 +1512,7 @@ static noinline void __init
> > > kernel_init_freeable(void)
> > >
> > > init_mm_internals();
> > >
> > > + spawn_ksoftirqd();
> > > rcu_init_tasks_generic();
> > > do_pre_smp_initcalls();
> > > lockup_detector_init();
> > > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> > > index 9d71046..45d50d4 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > > @@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ static struct smp_hotplug_thread softirq_threads = {
> > > .thread_comm = "ksoftirqd/%u",
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static __init int spawn_ksoftirqd(void)
> > > +__init int spawn_ksoftirqd(void)
> > > {
> > > cpuhp_setup_state_nocalls(CPUHP_SOFTIRQ_DEAD, "softirq:dead", NULL,
> > > takeover_tasklets);
> > > @@ -732,7 +732,6 @@ static __init int spawn_ksoftirqd(void)
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > -early_initcall(spawn_ksoftirqd);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * [ These __weak aliases are kept in a separate compilation unit, so
> > > that
> > >
> > I thought about this approach as a first step how to fix it, but then came
> > up with
> > moving the spawn_ksoftirqd(void); into the softirq_init() to make it
> > consolidated
> > at one place and not spread.
> >
> > Then moving the softirq_init() down may cause other drawbacks, like you
> > mentioned
> > if somebody needs it earlier.
> >
> > I agree with your approach. Invoking the spawn_ksoftirqd() before the
> > rcu_init_tasks_generic()
> > makes it safe. At least it prevents other parts to be broken comparing with
> > touching
> > and moving softirq_init().
>
> Glad you like it! But let's see which (if any) of these patches solves
> the problem for Sebastian.
>
I tried to reproduce it on my box and i succeed. Both patches solve it for me.
But let's see if it fixes Sebastian setup :)
--
Vlad Rezki
