Message-ID: <20191206220020.GA27511@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:00:20 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Workqueues splat due to ending up on wrong CPU

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 10:52:08AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 06:48:05AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:32:13AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:29:28AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:11:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And the good news is that I didn't see the workqueue splat, though my
> > > > > best guess is that I had about a 13% chance of not seeing it due to
> > > > > random chance (and I am currently trying an idea that I hope will make
> > > > > it more probable).  But I did get a couple of new complaints about RCU
> > > > > being used illegally from an offline CPU.  Splats below.
> > > > 
> > > > Shiny!
> > 
> > And my attempt to speed things up did succeed, but the success was limited
> > to finding more places where rcutorture chokes on CPUs being slow to boot.
> > Fixing those and trying again...
> 
> And I finally did manage to get a clean run.  There are probably a few
> more things that a large slow-booting hyperthreaded system can do to
> confuse rcutorture, but it is at least down to a dull roar.
> 
> > > > > Your patch did rearrange the CPU-online sequence, so let's see if I
> > > > > can piece things together...
> > > > > 
> > > > > RCU considers a CPU to be online at rcu_cpu_starting() time.  This is
> > > > > called from notify_cpu_starting(), which is called from the arch-specific
> > > > > CPU-bringup code.  Any RCU readers before rcu_cpu_starting() will trigger
> > > > > the warning I am seeing.
> > > > 
> > > > Right.
> > > > 
> > > > > The original location of the stop_machine_unpark() was in
> > > > > bringup_wait_for_ap(), which is called from bringup_cpu(), which is in
> > > > > the CPUHP_BRINGUP_CPU entry of cpuhp_hp_states[].  Which, if I am not
> > > > > too confused, is invoked by some CPU other than the to-be-incoming CPU.
> > > > 
> > > > Correct.
> > > > 
> > > > > The new location of the stop_machine_unpark() is in cpuhp_online_idle(),
> > > > > which is called from cpu_startup_entry(), which is invoked from
> > > > > the arch-specific bringup code that runs on the incoming CPU.
> > > > 
> > > > The new place is the final piece of bringup, it is right before where
> > > > the freshly woken CPU will drop into the idle loop and start scheduling
> > > > (for the first time).
> > > > 
> > > > > Which
> > > > > is the same code that invokes notify_cpu_starting(), so we need
> > > > > notify_cpu_starting() to be invoked before cpu_startup_entry().
> > > > 
> > > > Right, that is right before we run what used to be the CPU_STARTING
> > > > notifiers. This is in fact (on x86) before the CPU is marked
> > > > cpu_online(). It has to be before cpu_startup_entry(), before this is
> > > > ran with IRQs disabled, while cpu_startup_entry() demands IRQs are
> > > > enabled.
> > > > 
> > > > > The order is not immediately obvious on IA64.  But it looks like
> > > > > everything else does it in the required order, so I am a bit confused
> > > > > about this.
> > > > 
> > > > That makes two of us, afaict we have RCU up and running when we get to
> > > > the idle loop.
> > > 
> > > Or did we need rcutree_online_cpu() to have ran? Because that is ran
> > > much later than this...
> > 
> > No, rcu_cpu_starting() does the trick.  So I remain confused.
> > 
> > My thought is to add some printk()s or tracing to rcu_cpu_starting()
> > and its counterpart, rcu_report_dead().  But is there a better way?
> 
> And the answer is...
> 
> This splat happens even without your fix!
> 
> Which goes a long way to explaining why neither of us could figure out
> how your fix could have caused it.  It apparently was the increased
> stress required to reproduce quickly rather than your fix that made it
> happen more frequently.  Though there are few enough occurrences that
> it might just be random chance.
> 
> Thoughts?

I now have 12 of these, and my best guess is that this is happening
from kvm_guest_cpu_init() when it prints "KVM setup async PF for cpu",
given that this message is always either the line immediately
following the splat or the one after that.  So let's see if I can
connect the dots between kvm_guest_cpu_init() and start_secondary().
The "? slow_virt_to_phys()" makes sense, as it is invoked by
kvm_guest_cpu_init() just before the suspect printk().

kvm_guest_cpu_init() is invoked by kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(),
kvm_cpu_online(), and kvm_guest_init().  Since the boot CPU came
up long ago and since rcutorture CPU hotplug should be on the job
at the time of all of these splats, I am guessing kvm_cpu_online().
But kvm_cpu_online() is invoked by kvm_guest_init(), so all non-boot-CPU
roads lead to kvm_guest_init() anyway.

But kvm_guest_init() is an postcore_initcall() function.
It is also placed in x86_hyper_kvm.init.guest_late_init().
The postcore_initcall() looks unconditional, but does not appear in
dmesg.  Besides which, at the time of the splat, boot is working on
late_initcall()s rather than postcore_initcalls().  So let's look at
x86_hyper_kvm.init.guest_late_init(), which is invoked in setup_arch(),
which is in turn invoked way early in boot, before rcu_init().

So neither seem to make much sense here.

On the other hand, rcutorture's exercising of CPU hotplug before init
has been spawned might not make the most sense, either.  So I will queue
a patch that makes rcutorture hold off on the hotplug until boot is a
bit further along.

And then hammer this a bit over the weekend, this time with Peter's
alleged fix.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [   98.468097] =============================
> [   98.468097] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [   98.468098] 5.4.0-rc1+ #128 Not tainted
> [   98.468099] -----------------------------
> [   98.468099] kernel/sched/fair.c:6458 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> [   98.468099] 
> [   98.468100] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   98.468100] 
> [   98.468101] 
> [   98.468101] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> [   98.468102] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> [   98.468105] 3 locks held by swapper/1/0:
> [   98.468107]  #0: ffffffff91462958 ((console_sem).lock){-.-.}, at: up+0xd/0x50
> [   98.468120]  #1: ffff9dc89ecd87c0 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}, at: try_to_wake_up+0x51/0x980
> [   98.468131]  #2: ffffffff914647e0 (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: select_task_rq_fair+0xdb/0x12f0
> [   98.468161] initcall init_netconsole+0x0/0x21a returned 0 after 470496 usecs
> [   98.468164] 
> [   98.468167] stack backtrace:
> [   98.468169] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc1+ #128
> [   98.468172] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014
> [   98.468177] Call Trace:
> [   98.468178]  dump_stack+0x5e/0x8b
> [   98.468178]  select_task_rq_fair+0x8ef/0x12f0
> [   98.468179]  ? select_task_rq_fair+0xdb/0x12f0
> [   98.468179]  ? try_to_wake_up+0x51/0x980
> [   98.468180]  try_to_wake_up+0x171/0x980
> [   98.468180]  up+0x3b/0x50
> [   98.468180]  __up_console_sem+0x2e/0x50
> [   98.468181]  console_unlock+0x3eb/0x5a0
> [   98.468181]  ? console_unlock+0x19d/0x5a0
> [   98.468182]  vprintk_emit+0xfc/0x2c0
> [   98.468182]  printk+0x53/0x6a
> [   98.468182]  ? slow_virt_to_phys+0x22/0x120
> [   98.468183]  start_secondary+0x41/0x190
> [   98.468183]  secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
> [   98.468183] 
> [   98.468184] =============================
> [   98.468184] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [   98.468185] 5.4.0-rc1+ #128 Not tainted
> [   98.468185] -----------------------------
> [   98.468185] kernel/sched/fair.c:6010 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> [   98.468186] 
> [   98.468186] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   98.468187] 
> [   98.468187] 
> [   98.468187] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> [   98.468188] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> [   98.468188] 3 locks held by swapper/1/0:
> [   98.468189]  #0: ffffffff91462958 ((console_sem).lock){-.-.}, at: up+0xd/0x50
> [   98.468191]  #1: ffff9dc89ecd87c0 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}, at: try_to_wake_up+0x51/0x980
> [   98.468193]  #2: ffffffff914647e0 (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: select_task_rq_fair+0xdb/0x12f0
> [   98.468195] 
> [   98.468195] stack backtrace:
> [   98.468196] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc1+ #128
> [   98.468196] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014
> [   98.468197] Call Trace:
> [   98.468197]  dump_stack+0x5e/0x8b
> [   98.468197]  select_task_rq_fair+0x967/0x12f0
> [   98.468198]  ? select_task_rq_fair+0xdb/0x12f0
> [   98.468198]  ? try_to_wake_up+0x51/0x980
> [   98.468199]  try_to_wake_up+0x171/0x980
> [   98.468199]  up+0x3b/0x50
> [   98.468199]  __up_console_sem+0x2e/0x50
> [   98.468200]  console_unlock+0x3eb/0x5a0
> [   98.468200]  ? console_unlock+0x19d/0x5a0
> [   98.468201]  vprintk_emit+0xfc/0x2c0
> [   98.468201]  printk+0x53/0x6a
> [   98.468201]  ? slow_virt_to_phys+0x22/0x120
> [   98.468202]  start_secondary+0x41/0x190
> [   98.468202]  secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0

Powered by blists - more mailing lists