[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1dfeea09-cd4a-39fc-18f4-775bec99afa4@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:39:28 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Peng Liu <liupeng256@...wei.com>, brendanhiggins@...gle.com,
glider@...gle.com, elver@...gle.com, dvyukov@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] kfence: test: try to avoid test_gfpzero trigger
rcu_stall
On 3/8/22 6:47 PM, Peng Liu wrote:
> When CONFIG_KFENCE_DYNAMIC_OBJECTS is set to a big number, kfence
> kunit-test-case test_gfpzero will eat up nearly all the CPU's
> resources and rcu_stall is reported as the following log which is
> cut from a physical server.
>
> rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
> rcu: 68-....: (14422 ticks this GP) idle=6ce/1/0x4000000000000002
> softirq=592/592 fqs=7500 (t=15004 jiffies g=10677 q=20019)
> Task dump for CPU 68:
> task:kunit_try_catch state:R running task
> stack: 0 pid: 9728 ppid: 2 flags:0x0000020a
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1e4
> show_stack+0x20/0x2c
> sched_show_task+0x148/0x170
> ...
> rcu_sched_clock_irq+0x70/0x180
> update_process_times+0x68/0xb0
> tick_sched_handle+0x38/0x74
> ...
> gic_handle_irq+0x78/0x2c0
> el1_irq+0xb8/0x140
> kfree+0xd8/0x53c
> test_alloc+0x264/0x310 [kfence_test]
> test_gfpzero+0xf4/0x840 [kfence_test]
> kunit_try_run_case+0x48/0x20c
> kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x28/0x34
> kthread+0x108/0x13c
> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>
> To avoid rcu_stall and unacceptable latency, a schedule point is
> added to test_gfpzero.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Liu <liupeng256@...wei.com>
> ---
> mm/kfence/kfence_test.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c b/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
> index caed6b4eba94..1b50f70a4c0f 100644
> --- a/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
> +++ b/mm/kfence/kfence_test.c
> @@ -627,6 +627,7 @@ static void test_gfpzero(struct kunit *test)
> kunit_warn(test, "giving up ... cannot get same object back\n");
> return;
> }
> + cond_resched();
This sounds like a band-aid - is there a better way to fix this?
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < size; i++)
>
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists