[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180619010803.GC3593@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:08:03 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
mingo@...hat.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [rcutorture] 46e26223e3:
WARNING:at_kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:#rcu_torture_stats_print
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 03:26:47PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:56:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The reason for the rcutorture test failure could be that the default
> > > kthread_prio for the system's RCU threads is set to 1 (unless overridden by
> > > rcutree.kthread_prio) which is also equal to the priority of the rcutorture's
> > > boost threads. Due to this the rcutorture test could starve the RCU threads
> > > as well and defeat the boosting mechanism. I was able to solve a similar
> > > issue by just passing rcutree.kthread_prio of 50 on the kernel command line.
> > >
> > > Paul, would it be ok if we changed the default kthread_prio to something > 1
> > > so that rcutorture can test properly without needing to pass any extra
> > > rcutree.* parameters?
> > >
> > > so something like this in kernel/rcu/tree.c ?
> > >
> > > static int kthread_prio = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST) ? 2 : 0;
> >
> > Would it be possible to also condition this on rcutorture being built
> > in? Or are they doing modprobes for rcutorture?
>
> They seem to be doing built-in rcutorture tests. But I believe the same
> problem would occur even if you used modules? I believe the fact that
> rcutorture is a module or built-in wouldn't matter to the underlying issue
> which is the RCU subsystems's threads are at too low of a priority
> (rcutree.kthread_prio = 1).
Understood...
> If you agree with changing the default priority, I have included a patch
> below for rcu/dev.
The problem is that without rcutorture, rcutree.kthread_prio=1 is a
legitimate choice, and changing the default globally could be breaking
someone. So it would be far better to up the priority only during known
rcutorture testing.
Thanx, Paul
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
> ---8<-----------------------
>
> >From b0f4111ef1abd1c481c269fadb3535c83ab43c93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:13:10 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Change default RCU kthread priority to 2
>
> The current RT priority of 1 for RCU kthreads makes rcutorture's boost test
> fail on systems where rcutree.kthread_prio isn't passed.
>
> The rcutorture boost kthreads have the same priority as well (RT priority of
> 1). Due to this, the rcutorture kthreads starve the RCU subsystem's kthreads
> and causes rcutorture failures. This patch changes the priority of the RCU
> subsystem's threads to a default RT priority of 2 so that rcutorture's
> threads get preempted by them. Verified that the boost tests will pass with
> this change.
>
> Reported-by: Xiaolong Ye (via lkp-robot) <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index deb2508be923..920c39e3f871 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ static void rcu_report_exp_rdp(struct rcu_state *rsp,
> static void sync_sched_exp_online_cleanup(int cpu);
>
> /* rcuc/rcub kthread realtime priority */
> -static int kthread_prio = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST) ? 1 : 0;
> +static int kthread_prio = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_BOOST) ? 2 : 0;
> module_param(kthread_prio, int, 0644);
>
> /* Delay in jiffies for grace-period initialization delays, debug only. */
> --
> 2.18.0.rc1.244.gcf134e6275-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists