| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:48:26 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@...e.fr>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12650] Strange load average and ksoftirqd behavior with
2.6.29-rc2-git1
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:37:42PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 07:10:46AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 05:34:23AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:39:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 09:09:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here the calls to rcu_process_callbacks() are only 75
> > > > > > microseconds apart, so that this function is consuming more
> > > > > > than 10% of a CPU. The strange thing is that I don't see a
> > > > > > raise_softirq() in between, though perhaps it gets inlined or
> > > > > > something that makes it invisible to ftrace.
> > > > >
> > > > > look at the latest trace please, that has even the most inline
> > > > > raise-softirq method instrumented, so all the raising is
> > > > > visible.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, my apologies! This time looking at:
> > > >
> > > > http://damien.wyart.free.fr/ksoftirqd_pb/trace_tip_2009.02.16_ksoftirqd_pb_abstime_proc.txt.gz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 799.521187 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.521371 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.521555 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.521738 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.521934 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.522068 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.522208 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.522392 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.522575 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.522759 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.522956 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.523074 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.523214 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.523397 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.523579 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.523762 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.523960 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.524079 | 1) ksoftir-2324 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.524220 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.524403 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.524587 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > 799.524770 | 1) <idle>-0 | | rcu_check_callbacks() {
> > > > [ . . . ]
> > > >
> > > > Yikes!!!
> > > >
> > > > Why is rcu_check_callbacks() being invoked so often? It should be called
> > > > but once per jiffy, and here it is called no less than 22 times in about
> > > > 3.5 milliseconds, meaning one call every 160 microseconds or so.
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm...
> > > >
> > > > Looks like we never return from:
> > > >
> > > > 799.521142 | 1) <idle>-0 | | tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() {
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we are taking an interrupt immediately after the
> > > > local_irq_restore()? And at 799.521209 deciding to exit nohz mode.
> > > > And then deciding to go back into nohz mode at 799.521326, 117
> > > > microseconds later, after which we re-invoke rcu_check_callbacks(),
> > > > which again raises RCU's softirq.
> > > >
> > > > And the reason we are invoking rcu_check_callbacks() so often appears
> > > > to be in in arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c cpu_idle() near line 107,
> > > > which explains my failure to reproduce on a 64-bit system:
> > > >
> > > > void cpu_idle(void)
> > > > {
> > > > int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > >
> > > > current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
> > > >
> > > > /* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
> > > > while (1) {
> > > > tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(1);
> > > > while (!need_resched()) {
> > > >
> > > > check_pgt_cache();
> > > > rmb();
> > > >
> > > > if (rcu_pending(cpu))
> > > > rcu_check_callbacks(cpu, 0);
> > > >
> > > > if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> > > > play_dead();
> > > >
> > > > local_irq_disable();
> > > > __get_cpu_var(irq_stat).idle_timestamp = jiffies;
> > > > /* Don't trace irqs off for idle */
> > > > stop_critical_timings();
> > > > pm_idle();
> > > > start_critical_timings();
> > > > }
> > > > tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick();
> > > > preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > > > schedule();
> > > > preempt_disable();
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > If we go in and out of nohz mode quickly, we will invoke rcu_pending()
> > > > each time. I would expect rcu_pending() to return 0 most of the time,
> > > > but that apparently isn't the case with treercu...
> > > >
> > > > What is the easiest way for me to make it easy to trace the return path
> > > > from __rcu_pending()? Make each return path call an empty function
> > > > located off where the compiler cannot see it, I guess... Diagnostic
> > > > patch along these lines below. Frederic, Damien, could you please give
> > > > it a go? (And of course please let me know if something else is
> > > > needed.)
> > >
> > >
> > > No, you don't need that, you can use ftrace_printk, it will generate a C-comment like
> > > inside the functions, ie:
> > >
> > > __rcu_pending() {
> > > /* pending_qs */
> > > }
> >
> > Ah!!! So if I were to put ftrace_printk() calls at strategic points
> > in the RCU code, that would be a good thing?
> >
> > > I've converted your below patch with ftrace_printks and tested it under an old P2
> > > with rcu_tree and 1000 Hz. I made a trace during an idle state, and well, looks like I'm
> > > lucky :-)
> > > I guess I successfully reproduced the softirq/rcu overhead.
> > > Please find the below patch to trace the rcu_pending return path, as well as the trace I made.
> > > Sorry, the trace is a bit buggy with sometimes flying orphans C like comments.
> > > When I will have more time, I will fix that.
> > >
> > > The trace is here http://dl.free.fr/uyWGgCbx4
> > >
> > > It looks like it mostly returns 1 because of the waiting for quiescent state:
> > >
> > > $ cat rcutrace | grep "/* pending_none" | wc -l
> > > 221
> > > $ cat rcutrace | grep "/* pending_qs" | wc -l
> > > 248
> > > $ cat rcutrace | grep "/* pending" | wc -l
> > > 469
> >
> > Hmmm... This looks like normal behavior. Though I wonder if
> > rcu_check_callbacks() is recognizing that we are in the idle loop given
> > the large number of "pending_qs" entries. To that end, would you be
> > willing to try the attached patch (on top of your ftrace_printk() patch)?
> >
> > Add ftrace_printk() to rcu_check_callbacks() to allow ftrace to
> > determine when RCU has detected a quiescent state due to interrupting
> > from within it.
>
> Do you still need this trace even if your solution were applied on -tip ?
No, it was my confusion -- I later realized that your data above meant
that the force-quiescent-state code path was not being heavily exercised.
So no need for this trace!
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists