Message-ID: <c0a068e7-18e3-87df-676c-e8270cd732b6@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:22:05 -0500
From:   john.p.donnelly@...cle.com
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        chenguanyou <chenguanyou9338@...il.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     dave@...olabs.net, hdanton@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mazhenhua@...omi.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        quic_aiquny@...cinc.com, will@...nel.org, sashal@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more
 consistent

On 4/26/22 3:21 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 4/20/22 09:55, john.p.donnelly@...cle.com wrote:
>> On 4/12/22 11:28 AM, john.p.donnelly@...cle.com wrote:
>>> On 4/11/22 4:07 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/22 17:03, john.p.donnelly@...cle.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have reached out to Waiman and he suggested this for our next 
>>>>>>> test pass:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1ee326196c6658 locking/rwsem: Always try to wake waiters in 
>>>>>>> out_nolock path
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this commit help to avoid the lockup problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Commit 1ee326196c6658 fixes a potential missed wakeup problem when 
>>>>>> a reader first in the wait queue is interrupted out without 
>>>>>> acquiring the lock. It is actually not a fix for commit 
>>>>>> d257cc8cb8d5. However, this commit changes the out_nolock path 
>>>>>> behavior of writers by leaving the handoff bit set when the wait 
>>>>>> queue isn't empty. That likely makes the missed wakeup problem 
>>>>>> easier to reproduce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Longman
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are testing now
>>>>>
>>>>> ETA for fio soak test completion is  ~15hr from now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to share the stack traces for future reference + occurrences.
>>>>>
>>>> I am looking forward to your testing results tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Longman
>>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>   Our 24hr fio soak test with :
>>>
>>>   1ee326196c6658 locking/rwsem: Always try to wake waiters in 
>>> out_nolock path
>>>
>>>
>>>   applied to 5.15.30  passed.
>>>
>>>   I suggest you append  1ee326196c6658 with :
>>>
>>>
>>>   cc: stable
>>>
>>>    Fixes: d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling 
>>> more consistent")
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll leave the implementation details up to the core maintainers how 
>>> to do that ;-)
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> John.
>>
>> Hi ,
>>
>>
>>  We have observed another panic with :
>>
>>  1ee326196c6658 locking/rwsem: Always try to wake waiters in out_nolock
>>  path
>>
>>  Applied to 5.15.30 :
>>
>>
> Sorry for the late reply as I was busy with other important tasks.
> 
> When you said panic, you mean a system hang, not an actual panic. Right?

Hi ,

Our setups turn on all the panic on-hung-task , on-opps,  all those 
various features:

./sys/kernel/hardlockup_panic
./sys/kernel/hung_task_panic
./sys/kernel/max_rcu_stall_to_panic
./sys/kernel/panic
./sys/kernel/panic_on_io_nmi
./sys/kernel/panic_on_oops
./sys/kernel/panic_on_rcu_stall
./sys/kernel/panic_on_unrecovered_nmi
./sys/kernel/panic_on_warn
./sys/kernel/panic_print
./sys/kernel/softlockup_panic
./sys/kernel/unknown_nmi_panic


The machine is unusable when this occurs.


> 
> 
>> PID: 3789   TASK: ffff900fc409b300  CPU: 29  COMMAND: "dio/dm-0"
>>  #0 [fffffe00006bce50] crash_nmi_callback at ffffffff97c772c3
>>  #1 [fffffe00006bce58] nmi_handle at ffffffff97c40778
>>  #2 [fffffe00006bcea0] default_do_nmi at ffffffff988161e2
>>  #3 [fffffe00006bcec8] exc_nmi at ffffffff9881648d
>>  #4 [fffffe00006bcef0] end_repeat_nmi at ffffffff98a0153b
>>     [exception RIP: _raw_spin_lock_irq+35]
>>     RIP: ffffffff98827333  RSP: ffffa9320917fc78  RFLAGS: 00000046
>>     RAX: 0000000000000000  RBX: ffff900fc409b300  RCX: 0000000000000000
>>     RDX: 0000000000000000  RSI: 0000000000000000  RDI: 0000000000000000
>>     RBP: ffffa9320917fd20   R8: 0000000000000000   R9: 0000000000000000
>>     R10: 0000000000000000  R11: 0000000000000000  R12: ffff90006259546c
>>     R13: ffffa9320917fcb0  R14: ffff900062595458  R15: 0000000000000000
>>     ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff  CS: 0010  SS: 0018
>> --- <NMI exception stack> ---
>>  #5 [ffffa9320917fc78] _raw_spin_lock_irq at ffffffff98827333
>>  #6 [ffffa9320917fc78] rwsem_down_write_slowpath at ffffffff97d25d49
>>  #7 [ffffa9320917fd28] ext4_map_blocks at ffffffffc104b6dc [ext4]
>>  #8 [ffffa9320917fd98] ext4_convert_unwritten_extents at 
>> ffffffffc10369e0 [ext4]
>>  #9 [ffffa9320917fdf0] ext4_dio_write_end_io at ffffffffc103b2aa [ext4]
>> #10 [ffffa9320917fe18] iomap_dio_complete at ffffffff98013f45
>> #11 [ffffa9320917fe48] iomap_dio_complete_work at ffffffff98014047
>> #12 [ffffa9320917fe60] process_one_work at ffffffff97cd9191
>> #13 [ffffa9320917fea8] rescuer_thread at ffffffff97cd991b
>> #14 [ffffa9320917ff10] kthread at ffffffff97ce11f7
>> #15 [ffffa9320917ff50] ret_from_fork at ffffffff97c04cf2
>> crash>
>>
>>
>> The failure is observed running "fio test suite"  as a 24 hour soak 
>> test  on an LVM composed of four NVME devices, Intel 72 core server. 
>> The test cycles through a variety of file-system types.
>>
>>
>> This kernel has these commits
>>
>> 1ee326196c6658 locking/rwsem: Always try to wake waiters in 
>> out_nolock  path
>>
>> d257cc8cb8d5 ("locking/rwsem: Make handoff bit handling more consistent")
>>
>> In earlier testing I had reverted d257cc8cb8d5 and did not observe 
>> said panics.  I still feel d257cc8cb8d5 is  still the root cause.
> 
> So it is possible that 1ee326196c6658 does not completely eliminate the 
> missed wakeup situation.
> 
> Regards,
> Longman
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists