On 2015/1/21 18:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>>> On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>>>> On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
>>>
>>> [ . . . ]
>>>
>>>>> Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is based on v3.10.63.
>>>>> I have tested the latest upstream kernel (based on ec6f34e5b552),
>>>>> but my test case can't triggered RCU stall warning.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I used git bisect to find the bad commit, but found a irrelevant
>>>> commit(db5d711e2db776 zram: avoid null access when fail to alloc meta).
>>>> Before this commit, my test case can easily trigger RCU stall warning,
>>>> but after this commit, my test case can't trigger RCU stall warning.
>>>
>>> I have lost track of exactly what kernel you are using. If you are
>>> using a recent kernel (v3.18 or thereabouts), one thing to try is to
>>> apply my stack of RCU CPU stall-warning changes that are on their way
>>> in, please see v3.19-rc1..630181c4a915 in -rcu, which is at:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
>>>
>>> These handle the problems that Dave Jones and a few others located this
>>> past December. Could you please give them a spin?
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, my test case can easily trigger RCU stall-warning based on commit
>> 630181c4a915
>> in your linux-rcu git tree.
>>
>> In my .config, CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT=21.
>> Before commented out touch_softlockup_watchdog() in touch_nmi_watchdog:
>>
>> / #
>> / # echo 60 > /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog_thresh
>> [ 21.885200] NMI watchdog: disabled (cpu0): hardware events not enabled
>> / # busybox insmod softlockup_test.ko
>> [ 47.900117] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
>> [ 47.900117] (detected by 0, t=5252 jiffies, g=-202, c=-203, q=7)
>> [ 47.900117] All QSes seen, last rcu_sched kthread activity 5252
>> (4294904271-4294899019), jiffies_till_next_fqs=1
>
> Looks like you are starving RCU's grace-period kthreads. What happens if
> you boot with rcutree.kthread_prio=1 in order to run them at real-time
> priority?
>
>> [ 47.900117] busybox R running task 0 42 41
>> 0x00000008
>> [ 47.900117] ffffffff81afaf40 ffff88007fa03d98 ffffffff810781c0
>> ffffffff81a5e5f8
>> [ 47.900117] ffffffff81a45d80 ffff88007fa03dd8 ffffffff810af723
>> 0000000000000083
>> [ 47.900117] ffff88007fa13580 ffffffff81a45d80 ffffffff81a45d80
>> ffffffff810c43e0
>> [ 47.900117] Call Trace:
>> [ 47.900117] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810781c0>] sched_show_task+0xb0/0x110
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810af723>] print_other_cpu_stall+0x2d3/0x2f0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810c43e0>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0xc0/0xc0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810af8b8>] __rcu_pending+0x178/0x220
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810b02a5>] rcu_check_callbacks+0x105/0x190
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810c43e0>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0xc0/0xc0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810b3582>] update_process_times+0x32/0x60
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810c41e2>] tick_sched_handle+0x32/0x80
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810c442d>] tick_sched_timer+0x4d/0x90
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810b5b57>] __run_hrtimer+0xc7/0x1c0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810b5e37>] hrtimer_interrupt+0xe7/0x220
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffffa0005000>] ? 0xffffffffa0005000
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff81035654>] local_apic_timer_interrupt+0x34/0x60
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff81035d8c>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x3c/0x60
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff814ff02a>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x70
>> [ 47.900117] <EOI> [<ffffffff814fdaa0>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffffa000505d>] test_init+0x5d/0x1000 [softlockup_test]
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffffa0005000>] ? 0xffffffffa0005000
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff81000288>] do_one_initcall+0xb8/0x1d0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff81168794>] ? __vunmap+0x94/0xf0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810ce36b>] do_init_module+0x2b/0x1b0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810d09b5>] load_module+0x585/0x5f0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810cdd40>] ? mod_sysfs_teardown+0x150/0x150
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff810d0bbb>] SyS_init_module+0x9b/0xc0
>> [ 47.900117] [<ffffffff814fe252>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
>> [ 47.900117] rcu_sched kthread starved for 5252 jiffies!
>>
>> After commented out touch_softlockup_watchdog() in touch_nmi_watchdog:
>>
>> / #
>> / # echo 60 > /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog_thresh
>> [ 123.011980] NMI watchdog: disabled (cpu0): hardware events not enabled
>> / # busybox insmod softlockup_test.ko
>> [ 150.912055] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
>> [ 150.912055] (detected by 0, t=5252 jiffies, g=-198, c=-199, q=6)
>> [ 150.912055] All QSes seen, last rcu_sched kthread activity 5252
>> (4294930024-4294924772), jiffies_till_next_fqs=1
>
> Same here, looks like RCU's grace-period kthreads haven't gotten a chance
> to run for more than 5,000 jiffies.
>
>> [ 150.912055] busybox R running task 0 42 41
>> 0x00000008
>> [ 150.912055] ffffffff81afaf40 ffff88007fa03d98 ffffffff810781c0
>> ffffffff81a5e5f8
>> [ 150.912055] ffffffff81a45d80 ffff88007fa03dd8 ffffffff810af723
>> 0000000000000083
>> [ 150.912055] ffff88007fa13580 ffffffff81a45d80 ffffffff81a45d80
>> ffffffff810c43e0
>> [ 150.912055] Call Trace:
>> [ 150.912055] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810781c0>] sched_show_task+0xb0/0x110
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810af723>] print_other_cpu_stall+0x2d3/0x2f0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810c43e0>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0xc0/0xc0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810af8b8>] __rcu_pending+0x178/0x220
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810b02a5>] rcu_check_callbacks+0x105/0x190
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810c43e0>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0xc0/0xc0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810b3582>] update_process_times+0x32/0x60
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810c41e2>] tick_sched_handle+0x32/0x80
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810c442d>] tick_sched_timer+0x4d/0x90
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810b5b57>] __run_hrtimer+0xc7/0x1c0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810b5e37>] hrtimer_interrupt+0xe7/0x220
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffffa0005000>] ? 0xffffffffa0005000
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff81035654>] local_apic_timer_interrupt+0x34/0x60
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff81035d8c>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x3c/0x60
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff814ff02a>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x70
>> [ 150.912055] <EOI> [<ffffffff814fda90>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffffa000505d>] test_init+0x5d/0x1000 [softlockup_test]
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffffa0005000>] ? 0xffffffffa0005000
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff81000288>] do_one_initcall+0xb8/0x1d0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff81168784>] ? __vunmap+0x94/0xf0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810ce36b>] do_init_module+0x2b/0x1b0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810d09b5>] load_module+0x585/0x5f0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810cdd40>] ? mod_sysfs_teardown+0x150/0x150
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff810d0bbb>] SyS_init_module+0x9b/0xc0
>> [ 150.912055] [<ffffffff814fe252>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
>> [ 150.912055] rcu_sched kthread starved for 5252 jiffies!
>> ...
>> ...
>> [ 291.009857] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 135s!
>> [busybox:42]
>> [ 291.010286] Modules linked in: softlockup_test(O+)
>> [ 291.010944] CPU: 0 PID: 42 Comm: busybox Tainted: G O
>> 3.19.0-rc1-0.27-default+ #3
>> [ 291.011356] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2007
>> [ 291.011674] task: ffff88007d3e61d0 ti: ffff88007d3fc000 task.ti:
>> ffff88007d3fc000
>> [ 291.012066] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff814fda90>] [<ffffffff814fda90>]
>> _raw_spin_lock+0x20/0x30
>> [ 291.012205] RSP: 0018:ffff88007d3ffdd8 EFLAGS: 00000202
>> [ 291.012205] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff88007cc1e250 RCX:
>> 0000000000012a40
>> [ 291.012205] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000246 RDI:
>> ffff88007d3ffde8
>> [ 291.012205] RBP: ffff88007d3ffdd8 R08: ffff88007fa12a40 R09:
>> 000000000000b806
>> [ 291.012205] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffff88007d3ffcd8 R12:
>> ffffffff8107b1a4
>> [ 291.012205] R13: ffff88007d3ffd68 R14: 0000000000000000 R15:
>> 0000000000000000
>> [ 291.012205] FS: 00000000007fd880(0063) GS:ffff88007fa00000(0000)
>> knlGS:0000000000000000
>> [ 291.012205] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
>> [ 291.012205] CR2: 000000000081c87f CR3: 000000007d3f1000 CR4:
>> 00000000000006f0
>> [ 291.012205] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2:
>> 0000000000000000
>> [ 291.012205] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 0000000000000000 DR7:
>> 0000000000000000
>> [ 291.012205] Stack:
>> [ 291.012205] ffff88007d3ffe08 ffffffffa000505d ffff880000020000
>> 0000000000000000
>> [ 291.012205] ffffffffa0005000 ffffffff81a19250 ffff88007d3ffe78
>> ffffffff81000288
>> [ 291.012205] ffff88007d317540 0000000000000020 ffff88007d317540
>> 0000000000000001
>> [ 291.012205] Call Trace:
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffffa000505d>] test_init+0x5d/0x1000 [softlockup_test]
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffffa0005000>] ? 0xffffffffa0005000
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff81000288>] do_one_initcall+0xb8/0x1d0
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff81168784>] ? __vunmap+0x94/0xf0
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff810ce36b>] do_init_module+0x2b/0x1b0
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff810d09b5>] load_module+0x585/0x5f0
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff810cdd40>] ? mod_sysfs_teardown+0x150/0x150
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff810d0bbb>] SyS_init_module+0x9b/0xc0
>> [ 291.012205] [<ffffffff814fe252>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17
>> [ 291.012205] Code: 89 d0 c9 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 55 48 89 e5 b8 00 00
>> 01 00 3e 0f c1 07 89 c2 c1 ea 10 66 39 d0 75 0b eb 11 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00
>> <f3> 90 0f b7 07 66 39 c2 75 f6 c9 c3 0f 1f 40 00 55 48 89 e5 9c
>>
>>> Thanx, Paul
>>>
>>>> I'm totally confused.
>>>>
>>>> My test case:
>>>>
>>>> //
>>>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>> #include <linux/module.h>
>>>> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>> #include <linux/kthread.h>
>>>>
>>>> struct foo {
>>>> int a;
>>>> char b;
>>>> long c;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct foo gbl_foo = {1, 'a', 2};
>>>> struct foo *pgbl_foo = &gbl_foo;
>>>>
>>>> static int my_kthread(void *data)
>>>> {
>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(foo_mutex);
>
> This defines a spinlock on the stack, which means that each of your
> kthreads have their own lock, which means that acquiring the lock has
> no effect. Given that you spawn only one kthread, no problem now,
> but big problems when you spawn multiple kthreads.
>
>>>> struct foo *new_fp;
>>>> struct foo *old_fp;
>>>>
>>>> new_fp = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_fp), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> spin_lock(&foo_mutex);
>>>> old_fp = pgbl_foo;
>>>> *new_fp = *old_fp;
>>>> new_fp->a = 2;
>>>> rcu_assign_pointer(pgbl_foo, new_fp);
>
> You are planning to add RCU readers some time later?
I did this test is try to reproduce this problem and give Don a clue about what
is going
on.
This will help him to solve this problem.
>
>>>> spin_unlock(&foo_mutex);
>>>> synchronize_rcu();
>>>> kfree(old_fp);
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int hello_start(void)
>>>> {
>>>> struct task_struct *my_task = NULL;
>>>> DEFINE_SPINLOCK(hello_lock);
>>>>
>>>> my_task = kthread_run(my_kthread, NULL, "my_thread%d", 1);
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock_init(&hello_lock);
>>>> spin_lock(&hello_lock);
>>>> spin_lock(&hello_lock);
>
> And this is the cause of the RCU CPU stall warnings.
>
> If you only have one CPU and have built with CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, what
> you have above is expected behavior.
>
You are right, this qemu virtual machine has one CPU and built with
CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
Thanks!
> Thanx, Paul
>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static int __init test_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> hello_start();
>>>>
>>>> printk(KERN_INFO "Module init\n");
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static void __exit test_exit(void)
>>>> {
>>>> printk(KERN_INFO "Module exit!\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> module_init(test_init)
>>>> module_exit(test_exit)
>>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>>> //
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
>>>>>>> index 70bf118..833c015 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
>>>>>>> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
>>>>>>> * going off.
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> raw_cpu_write(watchdog_nmi_touch, true);
>>>>>>> - touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>>>>>>> + //touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
