[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d64c9d16-3b91-2081-0633-7f6a5196fd45@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:29:12 -0600
From: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
pprakash@...eaurora.org, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <rcochran@...utronix.de>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Deadlock due due to interactions of block, RCU, and cpu
offline
On 6/27/2017 6:11 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:32:09PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>> On 6/22/2017 9:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:18:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>> No worries, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the results of
>>>> your testing.
>>>
>>> And please see below for an updated patch based on LKML review and
>>> more intensive testing.
>>>
>>
>> I spent some time on this today. It didn't go as I expected. I
>> validated the issue is reproducible as before on 4.11 and 4.12 rcs 1
>> through 4. However, the version of stress-ng that I was using ran
>> into constant errors starting with rc5, making it nearly impossible
>> to make progress toward reproduction. Upgrading stress-ng to tip
>> fixes the issue, however, I've still been unable to repro the issue.
>>
>> Its my unfounded suspicion that something went in between rc4 and
>> rc5 which changed the timing, and didn't actually fix the issue. I
>> will run the test overnight for 5 hours to try to repro.
>>
>> The patch you sent appears to be based on linux-next, and appears to
>> have a number of dependencies which prevent it from cleanly applying
>> on anything current that I'm able to repro on at this time. Do you
>> want to provide a rebased version of the patch which applies to say
>> 4.11? I could easily test that and report back.
>
> Here is a very lightly tested backport to v4.11.
>
Works for me. Always reproduced the lockup within 2 minutes on stock
4.11. With the change applied, I was able to test for 2 hours in the
same conditions, and 4 hours with the full system and not encounter an
issue.
Feel free to add:
Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
I'm going to go back to 4.12-rc5 and see if I can get either repro the
issue, or identify what changed. Hopefully I can get to linux-next and
double check the original version of the change as well.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists