[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yuo7eYzQnzqx4u7F@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:10:17 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Liu Song <liusong@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/debug: avoid executing show_state and causing rcu
stall warning
* Liu Song <liusong@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> > * Liu Song <liusong@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Liu Song <liusong@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > >
> > > If the number of CPUs is large, "sysrq_sched_debug_show" will execute for
> > > a long time. Every time I execute "echo t > /proc/sysrq-trigger" on my
> > > 128-core machine, the rcu stall warning will be triggered. Moreover,
> > > sysrq_sched_debug_show does not need to be protected by rcu_read_lock,
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > and no rcu stall warning will appear after adjustment.
> > >
> > That doesn't mean it doesn't have to be protected by *any* lock - which
> > your patch implements AFAICS.
> >
> > There's a couple of lines such as:
> >
> > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>
> Hi,
>
> Here I refer to the implementation of "sysrq_timer_list_show", and I don't
> see any lock.
>
> Maybe there is a problem with the implementation of "sysrq_timer_list_show".
But we are talking about sysrq_sched_debug_show(), which your patch tries
to relax the RCU locking of.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists