[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161128173457.GJ2501@yexl-desktop>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 01:34:57 +0800
From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [rcu] a7410f28ce: INFO: rcu_sched detected expedited
stalls on CPUs/tasks: { 0-... } 25089 jiffies s: 9 root: 0x1/.
On 11/28, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>On 2016-11-09 14:25:39 [+0800], kernel test robot wrote:
>>
>> FYI, we noticed the following commit:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>> commit a7410f28ceb566bda840b4afc278747c63383fb6 ("rcu: update: Make RCU_EXPEDITE_BOOT be the default")
>>
>> in testcase: boot
>>
>> on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu host -smp 2 -m 1G
>>
>> caused below changes:
>>
>>
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> | | 9aa96e24ec | a7410f28ce |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> | boot_successes | 3 | 7 |
>> | boot_failures | 17 | 17 |
>> | INFO:rcu_sched_self-detected_stall_on_CPU | 17 | 14 |
>> | calltrace:mark_rodata_ro | 17 | 14 |
>> | INFO:rcu_sched_detected_stalls_on_CPUs/tasks | 15 | 14 |
>> | INFO:rcu_sched_detected_expedited_stalls_on_CPUs/tasks:{#-...}#jiffies_s:#root:#/ | 0 | 15 |
>> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>
>Is it correct to assume that there are RCU stalls with and without my
>patch but with my patch there are also "expedited" stalls?
>
>> [ 38.504100] Write protecting the kernel read-only data: 47104k
>> [ 38.511102] Freeing unused kernel memory: 720K (ffff88000314c000 - ffff880003200000)
>> [ 38.547480] Freeing unused kernel memory: 1032K (ffff880003cfe000 - ffff880003e00000)
>> [ 149.710631] INFO: rcu_sched detected expedited stalls on CPUs/tasks: { 0-... } 25089 jiffies s: 9 root: 0x1/.
>> [ 149.720353] blocking rcu_node structures:
>
>The other testing robot reported something similar against rcu/next.
>With my patch I get:
>
>[ 14.260226] Freeing unused kernel memory: 536K (ffff88000277a000 - ffff880002800000)
>[ 14.263114] Freeing unused kernel memory: 252K (ffff8800031c1000 - ffff880003200000)
>[ 35.256735] INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
>[ 35.257565] 1-...: (6299 ticks this GP) idle=0e2/140000000000001/0 softirq=90/90 fqs=2100 last_accelerate: 0000/c973, nonlazy_posted: 0, .D
>[ 35.259410] (t=6300 jiffies g=-252 c=-253 q=0)
>[ 35.260106] Task dump for CPU 1:
>[ 35.260608] swapper/0 R running task 0 1 0 0x00000008
>[ 35.261698] ffff880036107cc0 ffffffff81181de2 0000000000021780 ffff880036121780
>[ 35.262835] 0000000000000001 ffffffff832d7fc0 ffff880036107ce0 ffffffff8118616d
>[ 35.263995] ffffffff832d7fc0 0000000000000001 ffff880036107d30 ffffffff8128b3b8
>[ 35.265131] Call Trace:
>[ 35.265512] <IRQ> [ 35.265826] [<ffffffff81181de2>] sched_show_task+0x102/0x180
>[ 35.266701] [<ffffffff8118616d>] dump_cpu_task+0x4d/0x60
>[ 35.267526] [<ffffffff8128b3b8>] rcu_dump_cpu_stacks+0xee/0x11b
>…
>[ 35.289870] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
>[ 35.290500] 1-...: (6301 ticks this GP) idle=0e2/140000000000000/0 softirq=90/90 fqs=2100 last_accelerate: 0000/c97d, nonlazy_posted: 0, .D
>[ 35.291834] (detected by 0, t=6310 jiffies, g=-252, c=-253, q=0)
>[ 35.292505] Task dump for CPU 1:
>…
>[ 44.260103] INFO: rcu_sched detected expedited stalls on CPUs/tasks: { 1-... } 6784 jiffies s: 299 root: 0x2/.
>[ 44.261911] blocking rcu_node structures:
>[ 44.262627] Task dump for CPU 1:
>[ 44.263177] swapper/0 R running task 0 1 0 0x00000008
>[ 44.264379] 0000000041b58ab3 ffffffff81249eab ffffffff81b6f150 ffffffff819468d7
>[ 44.265640] 0000000041b58ab3 ffffffff830f76b0 0000000000000297 ffffffff83d87aa0
>[ 44.266915] 000000000000c6e0 0000000000000058 0000000000000000 ffff880035547be8
>[ 44.268153] Call Trace:
>[ 44.268603] [<ffffffff81249eab>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xdb/0x1e0
>[ 44.269708] [<ffffffff81b6f150>] ? serial8250_set_defaults+0x1a0/0x1a0
>
>and without it:
>[ 15.837956] Freeing unused kernel memory: 536K (ffff88000277a000 - ffff880002800000)
>[ 15.841396] Freeing unused kernel memory: 252K (ffff8800031c1000 - ffff880003200000)
>[ 43.070453] INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
>[ 43.071215] 1-...: (6299 ticks this GP) idle=daa/140000000000001/0 softirq=211/211 fqs=2100 last_accelerate: 0000/d29c, nonlazy_posted: 0, .D
>[ 43.072807] (t=6300 jiffies g=-91 c=-92 q=0)
>[ 43.073385] Task dump for CPU 1:
>[ 43.073800] swapper/0 R running task 0 1 0 0x00000008
>[ 43.074734] ffff880036107cc0 ffffffff81181de2 0000000000021780 ffff880036121780
>[ 43.075715] 0000000000000001 ffffffff832d7f80 ffff880036107ce0 ffffffff8118616d
>[ 43.076691] ffffffff832d7f80 0000000000000001 ffff880036107d30 ffffffff8128b3b8
>[ 43.077668] Call Trace:
>[ 43.077983] <IRQ> [ 43.078265] [<ffffffff81181de2>] sched_show_task+0x102/0x180
>[ 43.079006] [<ffffffff8118616d>] dump_cpu_task+0x4d/0x60
>…
>[ 43.097862] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
>[ 43.098442] 1-...: (6300 ticks this GP) idle=daa/140000000000000/0 softirq=211/211 fqs=2100 last_accelerate: 0000/d2a4, nonlazy_posted: 0, .D
>[ 43.099613] (detected by 0, t=6308 jiffies, g=-91, c=-92, q=0)
>[ 43.100180] Task dump for CPU 1:
>[ 43.100487] swapper/0 R running task 0 1 0 0x00000008
>[ 43.101171] ffffffff83d86c40 1ffff10006aa8f67 0000000500000058 0000000041b58ab3
>[ 43.101912] ffffffff8316ae78 ffffffff81b6f150 ffffffff819468d7 0000000041b58ab3
>[ 43.102657] ffffffff830f76b0 ffffffff81946830 ffff103000000020 ffff880000000020
>[ 43.103395] Call Trace:
>[ 43.103647] [<ffffffff81b6f150>] ? serial8250_set_defaults+0x1a0/0x1a0
>[ 43.104272] [<ffffffff819468d7>] ? sprintf+0xa7/0xd0
>
>So it looks to me that the problem has been always there but the
>additional "expedited" part in the INFO message was the reason to create
>the report.
Thanks for the explanation, we'll ignore this kind of reports. And sorry for
the noise.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>
>Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists