linux-kernel - Re: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks with `kswapd` and `mem_cgroup_shrink

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:50:16 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Donald Buczek <buczek@...gen.mpg.de>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>, dvteam@...gen.mpg.de,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks with `kswapd` and
 `mem_cgroup_shrink_node`

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has.  Last time I tried to add
> > > cond_resched_rcu_qs() semantics to cond_resched(), I got told "no",
> > > but perhaps it is time to try again.
> > 
> > Well, you got told: "ARRGH my benchmark goes all regress", or something
> > along those lines. Didn't we recently dig out those commits for some
> > reason or other?
> > 
> > Finding out what benchmark that was and running it against this patch
> > would make sense.

See commit:

  4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU")

Someone actually wrote down what the problem was.

> > Also, I seem to have missed, why are we going through this again?
> 
> Well, the point I've brought that up is because having basically two
> APIs for cond_resched is more than confusing. Basically all longer in
> kernel loops do cond_resched() but it seems that this will not help the
> silence RCU lockup detector in rare cases where nothing really wants to
> schedule. I am really not sure whether we want to sprinkle
> cond_resched_rcu_qs at random places just to silence RCU detector...

Right.. now, this is obviously all PREEMPT=n code, which therefore also
implies this is rcu-sched.

Paul, now doesn't rcu-sched, when the grace-period has been long in
coming, try and force it? And doesn't that forcing include prodding CPUs
with resched_cpu() ?

I'm thinking not, because if it did, that would make cond_resched()
actually schedule, which would then call into rcu_note_context_switch()
which would then make RCU progress, no?