[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1412111024010.17929@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:35:15 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rcu_sched stall detected, but no state dump
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 01:52:02PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > today I came across RCU stall which was correctly detected, but there is
> > no state dump. This is a bit suspicious, I think.
> >
> > This is the output in serial console:
> >
> > [ 105.727003] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > [ 105.727003] (detected by 0, t=21002 jiffies, g=3269, c=3268, q=138)
> > [ 105.727003] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> > [ 168.732006] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > [ 168.732006] (detected by 0, t=84007 jiffies, g=3269, c=3268, q=270)
> > [ 168.732006] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> > [ 231.737003] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > [ 231.737003] (detected by 0, t=147012 jiffies, g=3269, c=3268, q=388)
> > [ 231.737003] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> > [ 294.742003] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > [ 294.742003] (detected by 0, t=210017 jiffies, g=3269, c=3268, q=539)
> > [ 294.742003] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> > [ 357.747003] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > [ 357.747003] (detected by 0, t=273022 jiffies, g=3269, c=3268, q=693)
> > [ 357.747003] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> > [ 420.752003] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
> > [ 420.752003] (detected by 0, t=336027 jiffies, g=3269, c=3268, q=806)
> > [ 420.752003] INFO: Stall ended before state dump start
> > ...
> >
> > It can be reproduced by trivial code attached to this mail (infinite
> > loop in kernel thread created in kernel module). I have CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
> > The kernel thread is scheduled on the same CPU which causes soft lockup
> > (reliably detected when lockup detector is on). There is certainly RCU
> > stall, but I would expect a state dump. Is this an expected behaviour?
> > Maybe I overlooked some config option, don't know.
>
> Definitely not expected behavior! Unless you have only one CPU, but in
> that case you should be running tiny RCU, not tree RCU.
So indeed I messed up my configs somehow and run the code on uniprocessor
with SMP=y and tree RCU. With more processors RCU stall is detected and
correct state is dumped. On uniprocessor with SMP=n and tiny RCU
softlockup is detected, but no RCU stall in the log (is this correct?). So
I'm really sorry for the noise.
Anyway I still think that running SMP kernel with tree RCU on
uniprocessor is possible option (albeit suboptimal and maybe improbable).
Should I proceed with your patch below and bisection or am I mistaken
completely and we can leave it because there is no problem?
Thanks,
Miroslav
> > I tested 3.18 and also next-20141210. If it is improper behaviour I could
> > try to find a good kernel release and bisect it.
>
> Please! Could you also please try the (untested) diagnostic patch below
> on either 3.18 or -next? It should print messages covering all your
> CPUs, and the CPU that your kernel module's kthread is running on should
> show up as a one bit in the corresponding "mask" printout.
>
> Could you also please check what CPU the rcu_sched kthread is running on?
> One possibility is that this kthread is for some reason pinned on the
> same CPU that is running your kthread.
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 884e0ff020f1..d4018c025ac6 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1129,6 +1129,7 @@ static void print_other_cpu_stall(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> print_cpu_stall_info_begin();
> rcu_for_each_leaf_node(rsp, rnp) {
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
> + pr_err("[ CPUs %d-%d mask %#lx ]\n", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->qsmask);
> ndetected += rcu_print_task_stall(rnp);
> if (rnp->qsmask != 0) {
> for (cpu = 0; cpu <= rnp->grphi - rnp->grplo; cpu++)
>
--
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