[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180410182651.727b5ae7@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:26:51 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Occasionally losing the tick_sched_timer
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:42:29 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Nick,
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > We are seeing rare hard lockup watchdog timeouts, a CPU seems to have no
> > more timers scheduled, despite hard and soft lockup watchdogs should have
> > their heart beat timers and probably many others.
> >
> > The reproducer we have is running a KVM workload. The lockup is in the
> > host kernel, quite rare but we may be able to slowly test things.
> >
> > I have a sysrq+q snippet. CPU3 is the stuck one, you can see its tick has
> > stopped for a long time and no hrtimer active. Included CPU4 for what the
> > other CPUs look like.
> >
> > Thomas do you have any ideas on what we might look for, or if we can add
> > some BUG_ON()s to catch this at its source?
>
> Not really. Tracing might be a more efficient tool that random BUG_ONs.
Sure, we could try that. Any suggestions? timer events?
>
> > - CPU3 is sitting in its cpuidle loop (polling idle with all other idle
> > states disabled).
> >
> > - `taskset -c 3 ls` basically revived the CPU and got timers running again.
>
> Which is not surprising because that kicks the CPU out of idle and starts
> the tick timer again.
Yep.
> Does this restart the watchdog timers as well?
I think so, but now you ask I'm not 100% sure we directly observed it.
We can check that next time it locks up.
> > cpu: 3
> > clock 0:
> > .base: 00000000df30f5ab
> > .index: 0
> > .resolution: 1 nsecs
> > .get_time: ktime_get
> > .offset: 0 nsecs
> > active timers:
>
> So in theory the soft lockup watchdog hrtimer should be queued here.
>
> > .expires_next : 9223372036854775807 nsecs
> > .hres_active : 1
> > .nr_events : 1446533
> > .nr_retries : 1434
> > .nr_hangs : 0
> > .max_hang_time : 0
> > .nohz_mode : 2
> > .last_tick : 17763120000000 nsecs
> > .tick_stopped : 1
> > .idle_jiffies : 4296713609
> > .idle_calls : 2573133
> > .idle_sleeps : 1957794
>
> > .idle_waketime : 59550238131639 nsecs
> > .idle_sleeptime : 17504617295679 nsecs
> > .iowait_sleeptime: 719978688 nsecs
> > .last_jiffies : 4296713608
>
> So this was the last time when the CPU came out of idle:
>
> > .idle_exittime : 17763110009176 nsecs
>
> Here it went back into idle:
>
> > .idle_entrytime : 17763129999625 nsecs
>
> And this was the next timer wheel timer due for expiry:
>
> > .next_timer : 17763130000000
> > .idle_expires : 17763130000000 nsecs
>
> which makes no sense whatsoever, but this might be stale information. Can't
> tell.
Wouldn't we expect to see that if there is a timer that was missed
somehow because the tick_sched_timer was not set?
>
> > cpu: 4
> > clock 0:
> > .base: 0000000007d8226b
> > .index: 0
> > .resolution: 1 nsecs
> > .get_time: ktime_get
> > .offset: 0 nsecs
> > active timers: #0: <00000000a73e543a>, tick_sched_timer, S:01
> > # expires at 59552950000000-59552950000000 nsecs [in 2685654802 to 2685654802 nsecs]
>
> The tick timer is scheduled because the next timer wheel timer is due at
> 59552950000000, which might be the hard watchdog timer
>
> > #1: <000000009b4a3b88>, hrtimer_wakeup, S:01
> > # expires at 59602585423025-59602642458243 nsecs [in 52321077827 to 52378113045 nsecs]
>
> That might be the soft lockup hrtimer.
>
> I'd try to gather more information about the chain of events via tracing
> and stop the tracer once the lockup detector hits.
Okay will do, thanks for taking a look.
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists