Message-ID: <0fe2140a-90d5-4af5-ab0b-bec363ff793b@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:56:33 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	jpoimboe@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, jgross@...e.com,
	andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, bristot@...nel.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
	anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
	krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	David.Laight@...lab.com, richard@....at, jon.grimm@....com,
	bharata@....com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/30] PREEMPT_AUTO: support lazy rescheduling

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 02:54:45PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 01:24:59PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> > 
> > Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:45:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 06:03:28PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:
> > >> >
> > >> > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 09:55:24PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> > >> > >> Hi,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> This series adds a new scheduling model PREEMPT_AUTO, which like
> > >> > >> PREEMPT_DYNAMIC allows dynamic switching between a none/voluntary/full
> > >> > >> preemption model. However, unlike PREEMPT_DYNAMIC, it doesn't depend
> > >> > >> on explicit preemption points for the voluntary models.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> The series is based on Thomas' original proposal which he outlined
> > >> > >> in [1], [2] and in his PoC [3].
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> An earlier RFC version is at [4].
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This uncovered a couple of latent bugs in RCU due to its having been
> > >> > > a good long time since anyone built a !SMP preemptible kernel with
> > >> > > non-preemptible RCU.  I have a couple of fixes queued on -rcu [1], most
> > >> > > likely for the merge window after next, but let me know if you need
> > >> > > them sooner.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks. As you can probably tell, I skipped out on !SMP in my testing.
> > >> > But, the attached diff should tide me over until the fixes are in.
> > >>
> > >> That was indeed my guess.  ;-)
> > >>
> > >> > > I am also seeing OOM conditions during rcutorture testing of callback
> > >> > > flooding, but I am still looking into this.
> > >> >
> > >> > That's on the PREEMPT_AUTO && PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY configuration?
> > >>
> > >> On two of the PREEMPT_AUTO && PREEMPT_NONE configurations, but only on
> > >> two of them thus far.  I am running a longer test to see if this might
> > >> be just luck.  If not, I look to see what rcutorture scenarios TREE10
> > >> and TRACE01 have in common.
> > >
> > > And still TRACE01 and TREE10 are hitting OOMs, still not seeing what
> > > sets them apart.  I also hit a grace-period hang in TREE04, which does
> > > CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y along with CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO=y.  Something
> > > to dig into more.
> > 
> > So, the only PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y configuration is TREE04. I wonder
> > if you would continue to hit the TREE04 hang with CONFIG_PREEMTP_NONE=y
> > as well?
> > (Just in the interest of minimizing configurations.)

This time with the tarball actually attached!  :-/

						Thanx, Paul

> I would be happy to, but in the spirit of full disclosure...
> 
> First, I have seen that failure only once, which is not enough to
> conclude that it has much to do with TREE04.  It might simply be low
> probability, so that TREE04 simply was unlucky enough to hit it first.
> In contrast, I have sufficient data to be reasonably confident that the
> callback-flooding OOMs really do have something to do with the TRACE01 and
> TREE10 scenarios, even though I am not yet seeing what these two scenarios
> have in common that they don't also have in common with other scenarios.
> But what is life without a bit of mystery?  ;-)
> 
> Second, please see the attached tarball, which contains .csv files showing
> Kconfig options and kernel boot parameters for the various torture tests.
> The portions of the filenames preceding the "config.csv" correspond to
> the directories in tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs.
> 
> Third, there are additional scenarios hand-crafted by the script at
> tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/torture.sh.  Thus far, none of
> them have triggered, other than via the newly increased difficulty
> of configurating a tracing-free kernel with which to test, but they
> can still be useful in ruling out particular Kconfig options or kernel
> boot parameters being related to a given issue.
> 
> But please do take a look at the .csv files and let me know what
> adjustments would be appropriate given the failure information.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04 b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04
> > index 9ef845d54fa4..819cff9113d8 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/configs/rcu/TREE04
> > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >  CONFIG_SMP=y
> >  CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8
> > -CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=n
> > -CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
> > +CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> > +CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=n
> >  CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO=y
> >  CONFIG_PREEMPT=n
> >  CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC=n

Download attachment "tortureconfigs.2024.02.15a.tgz" of type "application/x-gtar-compressed" (1603 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists