Message-Id: <20161001175837.GP14933@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Sat, 1 Oct 2016 10:58:37 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] clocksource: add J-Core timer/clocksource driver

On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 01:05:08PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 06:48:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:15:11PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > I've managed to get a trace with a stall. I'm not sure what the best
> > > > way to share the full thing is, since it's large, but here are the
> > > > potentially interesting parts.
> > 
> > [ . . . ]
> > 
> > Some RCU commentary, on the off-chance that it helps...
> > 
> > > So that should kick rcu_sched-7 in 10ms, latest 20ms from now and CPU1 goes
> > > into a NOHZ idle sleep.
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.953436: tick_stop: success=1 dependency=NONE
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.953617: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109f449c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.953818: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109f449c function=tick_sched_timer expires=109880000000 softexpires=109880000000
> > > 
> > > which is (using the 0.087621us delta between the trace clock and clock
> > > MONO) at: 109.880 + 0.087621 = 109.968
> > > 
> > > Which is about correct as we expect the RCU timer to fire at:
> > >       
> > >       109.952633 + 0.01 = 109.963633
> > > 
> > > or latest at
> > > 
> > >       109.952633 + 0.02 = 109.983633
> > >    
> > > There is another caveat. That nohz stuff can queue the rcu timer on CPU0, which
> > > it did not because:
> > 
> > Just for annoying completeness, the location of the timer depends on how
> > the rcuo callback-offload kthreads are constrained.  And yes, in the most
> > constrained case where all CPUs except for CPU 0 are nohz CPUs, they will
> > by default all run on CPU 0.
> 
> In default full nohz configuration, am I correct that all cpus except
> cpu0 willd be nohz and that the rcu callbacks then have to run on
> cpu0?

In recent kernels, it looks to me that the default is that none of the
CPUs will be nohz by default.  You have to build with both NO_HZ_FULL
and NO_HZ_FULL_ALL to get the everything-on-CPU-0 behavior.

But are there rcu0 kthreads running on your system?

> > > >        rcu_sched-7     [001] d...   109.952633: timer_start: timer=160a9eb0 function=process_timeout expires=4294948284 [timeout=1] flags=0x00000001
> > > 
> > > The CPU nr encoded in flags is: 1
> > > 
> > > Now we cancel and restart the timer w/o seing the interrupt expiring
> > > it. And that expiry should have happened at 109.968000 !?!
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.968225: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109f449c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.968526: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109f449c function=tick_sched_timer expires=109890000000 softexpires=109890000000
> > > 
> > > So this advances the next tick even further out. And CPU 0 sets the timer to
> > > the exact smae value:
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.969104: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109e949c function=tick_sched_timer expires=109890000000 softexpires=109890000000
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.977690: irq_handler_entry: irq=16 name=jcore_pit
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.977911: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109e949c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.978053: hrtimer_expire_entry: hrtimer=109e949c function=tick_sched_timer now=109890434160
> > > 
> > > Which expires here. And CPU1 instead of getting an interrupt and expiring
> > > the timer does the cancel/restart to the next jiffie again:
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.978206: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109f449c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.978495: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109f449c function=tick_sched_timer expires=109900000000 softexpires=109900000000
> > > 
> > > And this repeats;
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.987726: irq_handler_entry: irq=16 name=jcore_pit
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.987954: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109e949c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   109.988095: hrtimer_expire_entry: hrtimer=109e949c function=tick_sched_timer now=109900474620
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.988243: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109f449c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   109.988537: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109f449c fun9c
> > > 
> > > There is something badly wrong here.
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] ..s.   110.019443: softirq_entry: vec=1 [action=TIMER]
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] ..s.   110.019617: softirq_exit: vec=1 [action=TIMER]
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] ..s.   110.019730: softirq_entry: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] ..s.   110.020174: softirq_exit: vec=7 [action=SCHED]
> > > >           <idle>-0     [000] d.h.   110.027674: irq_handler_entry: irq=16 name=jcore_pit
> > > > 
> > > > The rcu_sched process does not run again after the tick_stop until
> > > > 132s, and only a few RCU softirqs happen (all shown above). During
> > > > this time, cpu1 has no interrupt activity and nothing in the trace
> > > > except the above hrtimer_cancel/hrtimer_start pairs (not sure how
> > > > they're happening without any interrupts).
> > > 
> > > If you drop out of the arch idle into the core idle loop then you might end
> > > up with this. You want to add a few trace points or trace_printks() to the
> > > involved functions. tick_nohz_restart() tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick()
> > > tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick() and the idle code should be a good starting
> > > point.
> > > 
> > > > This pattern repeats until almost 131s, where cpu1 goes into a frenzy
> > > > of hrtimer_cancel/start:
> > > 
> > > It's not a frenzy. It's the same pattern as above. It arms the timer to the
> > > next tick, but that timer never ever fires. And it does that every tick ....
> > > 
> > > Please put a tracepoint into your set_next_event() callback as well. SO
> > > this changes here:
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   132.198170: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109f449c
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] d...   132.198451: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109f449c function=tick_sched_timer expires=132120000000 softexpires=132120000000
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] dnh.   132.205860: irq_handler_entry: irq=20 name=ipi
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] dnh.   132.206041: irq_handler_exit: irq=20 ret=handle
> > > 
> > > So CPU1 gets an IPI
> > > 
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] dn..   132.206650: hrtimer_cancel: hrtimer=109f449c
> > > 49c function=tick_sched_timer now=132119115200
> > > >           <idle>-0     [001] dn..   132.206936: hrtimer_start: hrtimer=109f449c function=tick_sched_timer expires=132120000000 softexpires=132120000000
> > > 
> > > And rcu-sched-7 gets running magically, but we don't know what woke it
> > > up. Definitely not the timer, because that did not fire.
> > > 
> > > >        rcu_sched-7     [001] d...   132.207710: timer_cancel: timer=160a9eb0
> > 
> > It could have been an explicit wakeup at the end of a grace period.  That
> > would explain its cancelling the timer, anyway.
> 
> I think the rcu stall handler kicked it, no? Looking at the code
> again, maybe that behavior needs to be explicitly turned on, so maybe
> it's just the uart interrupt activity/load from the stall message that
> breaks the stall condition.

That is indeed another alternative.  But either way, if your timers aren't
waking rcu_sched up when it asks to be awakened, you will very likely get
RCU CPU stall warning messages.  And on small systems, rcu_sched asks to
be awakened every few jiffies by default.

> > > > - During the whole sequence, hrtimer expiration times are being set to
> > > >   exact jiffies (@ 100 Hz), whereas before it they're quite arbitrary.
> > > 
> > > When a CPU goes into NOHZ idle and the next (timer/hrtimer) is farther out
> > > than the next tick, then tick_sched_timer is set to this next event which
> > > can be far out. So that's expected.
> > > 
> > > > - The CLOCK_MONOTONIC hrtimer times do not match up with the
> > > >   timestamps; they're off by about 0.087s. I assume this is just
> > > >   sched_clock vs clocksource time and not a big deal.
> > > 
> > > Yes. You can tell the tracer to use clock monotonic so then they should match.
> > > 
> > > > - The rcu_sched process is sleeping with timeout=1. This seems
> > > >   odd/excessive.
> > > 
> > > Why is that odd? That's one tick, i.e. 10ms in your case. And that's not
> > > the problem at all. The problem is your timer not firing, but the cpu is
> > > obviously either getting out of idle and then moves the tick ahead for some
> > > unknown reason.
> > 
> > And a one-jiffy timeout is in fact expected behavior when HZ=100.
> > You have to be running HZ=250 or better to have two-jiffy timeouts,
> > and HZ=500 or better for three-jiffy timeouts.
> 
> One possible theory I'm looking at is that the two cpus are both
> waking up (leaving cpu_idle_poll or cpuidle_idle_call) every jiffy
> with sufficient consistency that every time the rcu_gp_fqs_check_wake
> loop wakes up in rcu_gp_kthread, the other cpu is in cpu_idle_loop but
> outside the rcu_idle_enter/rcu_idle_exit range. Would this block
> forward process? I added an LED indicator in rcu_gp_fqs_check_wake
> that shows the low 2 bits of rnp->qsmask every time it's called, and
> under normal operation the LEDs just flash on momentarily or just one
> stays on for a few seconds then goes off. During a stall both are
> stuck on. I'm still trying to make sense of the code but my impression
> so far is that, on a 2-cpu machine, this is a leaf node and the 2 bits
> correspond directly to cpus; is that right? If so I'm a bit confused
> because I don't see how forward progress could ever happen if the cpu
> on which rcu_gp_kthread is blocking forward progress of
> rcu_gp_kthread.

No.  If the CPUs are entering and leaving idle, and if your timers
were waking up rcu_sched every few jiffies like it asks, then the
repeated idle entry/exit events would be noticed, courtesy of the atomic
increments of ->dynticks and the rcu_sched kthread's snapshotting and
checking of this value.  Even if the CPUs were always non-idle on every
time force_quiescent_state() is invoked, give or take the possibility
of counter wrap -- but even on a 32-bit system, that takes awhile.

But if your timers don't wake up rcu_sched, then force_quiescent_state()
will never be called, and the ->dynticks counter will be neither
snapshotted nor checked, which will mean that the idle CPUs will never
be noticed, which might mean that the grace period never completes.
Which will definitely result in an RCU CPU stall warning like the one
that you are seeing.

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists