linux-kernel - Re: RCU stall warnings...

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:   Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU stall warnings...

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 16:20:33 -0700

> It looks like the system isn't letting the rcu_sched grace-period kthread
> run:
> 
> [402138.240512] rcu_sched kthread starved for 2757 jiffies! g53669 c53668 f0x0 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x1
> 
> This kthread tried to wait for a few jiffies (the exact number depends
> on HZ and the number of CPUs), but 2,757 jiffies have elapsed and it is
> still waiting.  This kthread is responsible for detecting idle CPUs and
> reporting quiescent states on their behalf, so if this kthread doesn't
> get a chance to run, then the stall warnings you are seeing are expected
> behavior.
> 
> I am seeing someething like sort of like this in my rcutorture runs,
> but only when I boot with nr_cpus quite a bit bigger than maxcpus, as in
> something like nr_cpus=43 and maxcpus=8.  This causes 8 CPUs to be brought
> online at the usual time, and the other 35 come online some time later.
> One difference from your situation is that I see the grace-period
> kthread in ->state=0x401 (TASK_WAKING) instead of your ->state=0x1.
> If I send extra wakeups to the grace-period kthread (which shouldn't be
> needed), it does make progress, but then other kthreads fall into that
> same half-woken state.
> 
> So now that I ahve shared the full extent of my ignorance on this topic,
> any ideas?  ;-)

Shoing my ignorance as well, after reading this, for some reason this
commit below sticks out to me.  Maybe I should do a bisect and see if
it lands on this commit.

That would take a while as it's hard to forcibly set this thing off.

====================
commit f92c734f02cbf10e40569facff82059ae9b61920
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon Apr 10 15:40:35 2017 -0700

    rcu: Prevent rcu_barrier() from starting needless grace periods
    
    Currently rcu_barrier() uses call_rcu() to enqueue new callbacks
    on each CPU with a non-empty callback list.  This works, but means
    that rcu_barrier() forces grace periods that are not otherwise needed.
    The key point is that rcu_barrier() never needs to wait for a grace
    period, but instead only for all pre-existing callbacks to be invoked.
    This means that rcu_barrier()'s new callbacks should be placed in
    the callback-list segment containing the last pre-existing callback.
    
    This commit makes this change using the new rcu_segcblist_entrain()
    function.
    
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>