Message-ID: <20130117234614.GB10127@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:46:14 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jslaby@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: Avoid softlockups in console_unlock()

On Thu 17-01-13 13:39:17, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:04:42 +0100
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> 
> > ...
> >
> >   So I played a bit with this. To make things easier for me I added
> > artificial mdelay(len*10) (effectively simulating console able to print 100
> > characters per second) just after call_console_drivers() so that I can
> > trigger issues even on a machine easily available to me. Booting actually
> > doesn't trigger any problems because there aren't enough things happening
> > in parallel on common machine during boot but
> >   echo t >/proc/sysrq-trigger &
> >   for i in /lib/modules/3.8.0-rc3-0-default/kernel/fs/*/*.ko; do 
> >     name=`basename $i`; name=${name%.ko}; modprobe $name
> >   done
> > easily triggers the problem (as modprobe uses both RCU & IPIs to signal all
> > CPUs).
> > 
> >   Adding
> > 	touch_nmi_watchdog();
> > 	touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs();
> > 	rcu_cpu_stall_reset();
> 
> I'm not sure that touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs() is needed? 
> touch_nmi_watchdog() itself calls touch_softlockup_watchdog().
  It is. I've tried without it and the machine died a horrible death
because softlockup reports added to already too heavy printk traffic. The
problem is that CPU doing printing cannot handle IPIs thus if someone calls
e.g. smp_call_function_many() that function will spin waiting for IPIs on
all CPUs to finish. And that doesn't happen until printing is done so
CPU doing smp_call_function_many() gets locked up as well.

> If the rcu_cpu_stall_reset() is needed here then presumably it is
> needed elsewhere and we should put a call to rcu_cpu_stall_reset() into
> (the increasingly misnamed) touch_nmi_watchdog().
  Yeah, correct.
 
> >   into the printk loop did stop all the warnings and the machine eventually
> > came alive again after finishing printing sysrq-t output (while printing
> > the machine was responding to ping but ssh stopped working after a while -
> > not sure what was happening but apparently some IO requests weren't
> > completing and maybe networking started dropping packets because it
> > accumulated too much RCU work).
> > 
> > So your suggestion seems certainly plausible. I was just wondering
> >   a) Above three lines can be pretty expensive on big machines as they
> > iterate over all CPUs. So we should probably limit it to once per jiffy or
> > something like that?
> 
> I guess so - is it hard to test the effects of such a change?  Maybe do
> a few MB of printks with the output disabled with `dmesg -n' and see
> what effect such a patch has?
  OK, will try.
 
> If it does need ratelimiting, I'd worry about using jiffies for that. 
> If the kernel is spending a long time with interrupts disabled, jiffies
> might not be incrementing.  Using the CPU timestamp would be better
> (eg, sched_clock()).
> 
> >   b) Above three lines can make softlockup detection pretty useless if
> > there's enough printk traffic (it would be enough to printk() something
> > every 10s or so which can happen with netfilter logging packets or so).
> 
> Yes, that is a concern.
> 
> > But if we touch the watchdogs only if we spend more than 1 jiffy in the
> > console_unlock() we should hopefully touch those watchdogs only in rare
> > cases of heavy printk traffic.
> 
> yup.  Another option might be to do the touch_nmi_watchdog() only if
> there is a "large" amount of data being emitted within
> console_unlock().  Like your 1000 character threshold.
  OK, I'll experiment a bit more and will see what works.
 
> > PS: sysrq-t was ~200 KB on that freshly booted machine so on a busy machine
> > that would trigger softlockups with 115200 serial console as well (I
> > actually do remember seeing it in some customer's reports). So it's not
> > just boot. 
> 
> Yes, we have hit this before.  Large printks over slow console devices.
> See the sad little touch_nmi_watchdog() in lib/show_mem.c, for
> example.  I actually thought we'd fixed this in printk itself but it
> seems not - the two touch_nmi_watchdog()s in there are for special
> cases.
> 
> Actually, a bit of grepping for touch_nmi_watchdog() is interesting.  A
> number of serial drivers are doing it, which makes me wonder why your
> customers weren't saved by that - using the wrong driver, perhaps?  If
> we can get this fixed centrally then a lot of those calls should be
> removeable.
  Ah, finally I understand why the hardlockup detector doesn't trigger.
These touch_nmi_watchdog() calls silence it. So that's why only RCU
eventually complains and other CPUs get locked up due to IPIs. But I never
saw softlockup reports from the CPU doing the printing (which was actually
why it took us rather long time to figure out the culprit of these stalls).

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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