Message-ID: <20120922150913.GA2934@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:09:13 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RCU idle CPU detection is broken in linux-next

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 05:18 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 09/21/2012 05:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:26:27PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >>> On 09/21/2012 02:13 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>>> This might be unrelated, but I got the following dump as well when trinity
> >>>>>> decided it's time to reboot my guest:
> >>>> OK, sounds like we should hold off until you reproduce, then.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what you mean.
> >>>
> >>> There are basically two issues I'm seeing now, which reproduce pretty much every
> >>> time:
> >>>
> >>>  1. The "using when idle" warning.
> >>>  2. The rcu related hangs during shutdown.
> >>>
> >>> The first one appears early on when I start fuzzing, the other one happens when
> >>> shutting down - so both of them are reproducible in the same session.
> >>
> >> Ah, I misunderstood the "reboot my guest" -- I thought that you were
> >> doing something like repeated modprobe/rmmod cycles on rcutorture while
> >> running the guest for an extended time period.  That will teach me not
> >> to reply to email so soon after waking up.  ;-)
> >>
> >> That said, #2 is expected behavior given the RCU CPU stall warnings in
> >> your Sept. 20 dmesg.  This is because rcutorture does rcu_barrier() on
> >> the way out, which cannot complete if grace periods are not completing.
> >> And the later soft lockup is also likely a consequence of the stall,
> >> because CPU hotplug does a synchronize_sched() while holding the hotplug
> >> lock, which will then cause get_online_cpus() to hang.
> >>
> >> Looking further down, there are hung tasks that are waiting for a
> >> timeout, but this is also a consequence of the hang because they
> >> are waiting for MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT -- in other words, they are
> >> waiting to be killed at shutdown time.  I could suppress this by using
> >> schedule_timeout_interruptible() in a loop in order to reduce the noise
> >> in this case.
> >>
> >> The remaining traces in that email are also consequences of the stall.
> >>
> >> So why the stall?
> >>
> >> Using RCU from a CPU that RCU believes to be idle can cause arbitrary
> >> bad behavior (possibly including stalls), but with very low probability.
> >> The reason that things can go arbitrarily bad is that RCU is ignoring
> >> the CPU, and thus not waiting for any RCU read-side critical sections.
> >> This could of course result in abitrary corruption of memory.  The reason
> >> for the low probability is that grace periods tend to be long and RCU
> >> read-side critical sections tend to be short.
> >>
> >> It looks like you are running -next, which has RCU grace periods driven
> >> by a kthread.  Is it possible that this kthread is not getting a chance
> >> to run (in fact, the "Stall ended before state dump start" is consistent
> >> with that possibility), but in that case I would expect to see a soft
> >> lockup from it.  Furthermore, in that case, it would be expected to
> >> start running again as soon as things started going idle during shutdown.
> >>
> >> Or did the system somehow manage to stay busy despite being in shutdown?
> >> Or, for that matter, are you overcommitting the physical CPUs on your
> >> trinity test setup?
> > 
> > Nope, I originally had 4 vcpus in the guest with the host running 4 physical
> > cpus, but I've also tested it with just 2 vcpus and still see the warnings.
> 
> Some more info that might help, I'm also occasionally seeing:
> 
> [   42.389345] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   42.389348] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:375 rcu_eqs_enter+0x5c/0xc0()
> [   42.389350] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G        W
> 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378

Hmmm...  So either RCU is losing count or some CPU that is already
marked as idle from RCU's perspective is trying to re-enter idle.

This is helpful, thank you!  It fits in nicely with the splat that
you got after applying Michael Wang's patch.  Could you please try the
diagnostic patch below?

							Thanx, Paul

> [   42.389351] Call Trace:
> [   42.389354]  [<ffffffff811c653c>] ? rcu_eqs_enter+0x5c/0xc0
> [   42.389356]  [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0
> [   42.389359]  [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> [   42.389361]  [<ffffffff811c653c>] rcu_eqs_enter+0x5c/0xc0
> [   42.389364]  [<ffffffff811c66f3>] rcu_idle_enter+0x43/0xa0
> [   42.389366]  [<ffffffff81078956>] cpu_idle+0x126/0x160
> [   42.389369]  [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276
> [   42.389370] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64ee ]---
> [   42.389394] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   42.389396] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:350 rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x709/0x970()
> [   42.389398] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G        W
> 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378
> [   42.389399] Call Trace:
> [   42.389402]  [<ffffffff811c6019>] ? rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x709/0x970
> [   42.389405]  [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0
> [   42.389407]  [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> [   42.389410]  [<ffffffff811c6019>] rcu_eqs_enter_common+0x709/0x970
> [   42.389412]  [<ffffffff811c658f>] rcu_eqs_enter+0xaf/0xc0
> [   42.389414]  [<ffffffff811c66f3>] rcu_idle_enter+0x43/0xa0
> [   42.389417]  [<ffffffff81078956>] cpu_idle+0x126/0x160
> [   42.389420]  [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276
> [   42.389421] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64ef ]---
> [   42.389424] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   42.389426] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:527 rcu_eqs_exit+0x4f/0xb0()
> [   42.389427] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G        W
> 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378
> [   42.389428] Call Trace:
> [   42.389431]  [<ffffffff811c6d9f>] ? rcu_eqs_exit+0x4f/0xb0
> [   42.389433]  [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0
> [   42.389436]  [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> [   42.389438]  [<ffffffff811c6d9f>] rcu_eqs_exit+0x4f/0xb0
> [   42.389441]  [<ffffffff811c6f13>] rcu_idle_exit+0x43/0xa0
> [   42.389443]  [<ffffffff8107896d>] cpu_idle+0x13d/0x160
> [   42.389445]  [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276
> [   42.389447] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64f0 ]---
> [   42.389448] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   42.389450] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:501 rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0()
> [   42.389451] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G        W
> 3.6.0-rc6-next-20120921-sasha-00002-ge9c9495-dirty #378
> [   42.389452] Call Trace:
> [   42.389455]  [<ffffffff811c679a>] ? rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0
> [   42.389458]  [<ffffffff81106886>] warn_slowpath_common+0x86/0xb0
> [   42.389460]  [<ffffffff81106975>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> [   42.389462]  [<ffffffff811c679a>] rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x4a/0x3a0
> [   42.389465]  [<ffffffff811c6dec>] rcu_eqs_exit+0x9c/0xb0
> [   42.389467]  [<ffffffff811c6f13>] rcu_idle_exit+0x43/0xa0
> [   42.389470]  [<ffffffff8107896d>] cpu_idle+0x13d/0x160
> [   42.389472]  [<ffffffff83985a64>] start_secondary+0x26e/0x276
> [   42.389474] ---[ end trace 04c11301284d64f1 ]---

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index da14e5c..39d0aec 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -418,16 +418,22 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
 				pm_idle();
 
 			rcu_idle_exit();
+			WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
 			start_critical_timings();
 
 			/* In many cases the interrupt that ended idle
 			   has already called exit_idle. But some idle
 			   loops can be woken up without interrupt. */
+			WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
 			__exit_idle();
+			WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
 		}
 
+		WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
 		tick_nohz_idle_exit();
+		WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
 		preempt_enable_no_resched();
+		WARN_ON(rcu_is_cpu_idle());
 		schedule();
 		preempt_disable();
 	}

--
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