[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150603023457.GH5847@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:34:57 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] smpboot: allow excluding cpus from the smpboot
threads
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 06:06:24PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 5/1/2015 5:23 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 03:57:51PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >
> >>For example, booting with only cpu 0 as a housekeeping core (and
> >>therefore all watchdogs 1-35 on my 36-core tilegx are parked), and
> >>immediately doing "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog", I see
> >>(via SysRq ^O-l) the first parked watchdog, on cpu 1, hung with:
> >>
> >> frame 0: 0xfffffff7000f2928 lock_hrtimer_base+0xb8/0xc0
> >> frame 1: 0xfffffff7000f2a28 hrtimer_try_to_cancel+0x40/0x170
> >> frame 2: 0xfffffff7000f2a28 hrtimer_try_to_cancel+0x40/0x170
> >> frame 3: 0xfffffff7000f2b98 hrtimer_cancel+0x40/0x68
> >> frame 4: 0xfffffff70014cce0 watchdog_disable+0x50/0x70
> >> frame 5: 0xfffffff70008c2d0 smpboot_thread_fn+0x350/0x438
> >> frame 6: 0xfffffff700084b28 kthread+0x160/0x178
> >Have you tried to do that before your patchset?
>
> Yes, it works fine. It requires the presence of the parked threads to trigger the issue.
>
> >>The config does not have NO_HZ_FULL_ALL or NO_HZ_FULL_SYSIDLE
> >>set, and does have RCU_FAST_NO_HZ and RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL.
> >>
> >>I don't really know how to start debugging this, but I do know that
> >>unparking the threads first avoids the issue :-)
> >Do you have CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y ?
>
> There seems to be some skew between the community version, which is throwing a
> bunch of errors when I enable PROVE_LOCKING, and our internal version where some
> things are not yet upstreamed but PROVE_LOCKING works :-)
>
> I'll try to set aside some time to reconcile the two to figure it out.
Hi Chris,
I was digging this thread back up and wondered what happened. It seems like
a v11 was going to materialize?
Cheers,
Don
--
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