[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200615172149.GJ2723@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:21:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, frederic@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched: TTWU, IPI, and assorted stuff
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:40:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 09:23:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 02:56:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > So Paul reported rcutorture hitting a NULL dereference, and patch #1 fixes it.
> > >
> > > Now, patch #1 is obviously correct, but I can't explain how exactly it leads to
> > > the observed NULL pointer dereference. The NULL pointer deref happens in
> > > find_matching_se()'s last while() loop when is_same_group() fails even though
> > > both parents are NULL.
> >
> > My bisection of yet another bug sometimes hits the scheduler NULL pointer
> > dereference on older commits. I will try out patch #2.
>
> Thanks! I've got 16*TREE03 running since this morning, so far so nothing :/
> (FWIW that's 16/9 times overcommit, idle time fluctuates around 10%).
My large system as large remote memory latencies, as in the better part
of a microsecond. My small system is old (Haswell). So, just to grasp
at the obvious straw, do you have access to a multisocket Haswell system?
Or maybe Thomas can reproduce this one as well?
Right now I am running your earlier fix patch against mainline commit
d2d5439df22f ("Merge tag 'for-linus-5.8b-rc1-tag' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/xen/tip").
> > Whether this is reassuring or depressing, I have no idea. :-/
>
> Worrysome at least, I don't trust stuff I can't explain.
I know that feeling!
> > > The only explanation I have for that is that we just did an activate_task()
> > > while: 'task_cpu(p) != cpu_of(rq)', because then 'p->se.cfs_rq' doesn't match.
> > > However, I can't see how the lack of #1 would lead to that. Never-the-less,
> > > patch #2 adds assertions to warn us of this case.
> > >
> > > Patch #3 is a trivial rename that ought to eradicate some confusion.
> > >
> > > The last 3 patches is what I ended up with for cleaning up the whole
> > > smp_call_function/irq_work/ttwu thing more.
> >
> > Would it be possible to allow a target CPU # on those instances of
> > __call_single_data? This is extremely helpful for debugging lost
> > smp_call_function*() calls.
>
> target or source ? Either would be possible, perhaps even both. We have
> a spare u32 in __call_single_node.
The target CPU is the immediate concern, but I could easily imagine
cases where the source CPU might also be needed.
> Something like the below on top of 1-4. If we want to keep this, we
> should probably stick it under some CONFIG_DBUG thing or other.
Looks plausible to me, and CONFIG_DEBUG or whatever makes a lot of
sense.
How would you like to proceed? I can take this one and then port
the existing debug code on top of it, for example.
Thanx, Paul
> --- a/include/linux/smp_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/smp_types.h
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct __call_single_node {
> unsigned int u_flags;
> atomic_t a_flags;
> };
> + u16 src, dst;
> };
>
> #endif /* __LINUX_SMP_TYPES_H */
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -135,8 +135,14 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(cal
>
> void __smp_call_single_queue(int cpu, struct llist_node *node)
> {
> + struct __call_single_node *n =
> + container_of(node, struct __call_single_node, llist);
> +
> WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu == smp_processor_id());
>
> + n->src = smp_processor_id();
> + n->dst = cpu;
> +
> /*
> * The list addition should be visible before sending the IPI
> * handler locks the list to pull the entry off it because of
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists