All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Mike Lykov <combr@yandex.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
	kirill@shutemov.name
Subject: Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:40:33 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130130154033.GE98867@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5108EA4B.7030003@yandex.ru>

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 01:39:23PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
> 29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет:
> 
> >The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks
> >the softlockups.  If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could
> >accidentally trip the detection.
> 
> Inyerestingly, that a decompress of lzma -4 takes longer time than
> decompress lzma -9, and it stated in man lzma(1):
> "  On  the  same hardware, the decompression speed is approximately
> a constant number of bytes of compressed data per second.  In other
> words, the better the compression, the faster the  decompression
> will  usually  be. "
> 
> I tested it on target computer by hand:
> 
> lzma -4 compressed: time unlzma initram-alt-p6rel3-4.cpio.lzma
> 20.94user 1.47system 0:22:45elapsed 99%CPU (...19424maxresidents)k
> 
> lzma -9 compressed: time unlzma initram-alt-p6rel3-9.cpio.lzma
> 19.49user 1.92system 0:21:44elapsed 99%CPU (...241488maxresidents)k
> 
> So, it cannot "take too long" because not-working faster than working.
> Apparently time not matter, but algorithm complexity?
> 
> >>2. How to change watchdog_thresh parameter at boot without patching
> >>sources? If it necessary (with it side effects) maybe implement it
> >>as commandline parameter or config compile time parameter?
> >
> >I attached a patch below that allows you to set it a boot time.  Let me
> >know if this works for you, then I can clean it up and post it properly.
> 
> It not works for me. I apply this patch, build, use ("int
> __read_mostly watchdog_thresh = 10;"  as in original)
> command line:
> 
> [    0.000000] Kernel command line:
> initrd=initram-alt-p6rel3-9.cpio.lzma console=uart,io,0x240,115200n8
> kernel.watchdog_thresh=30

I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'.  Could you try
'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?

I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine.  Probably makes things
run a little slower.  Compiled tested only.

Cheers,
Don

diff --git a/lib/decompress_unlzma.c b/lib/decompress_unlzma.c
index 32adb73..313f4fa 100644
--- a/lib/decompress_unlzma.c
+++ b/lib/decompress_unlzma.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
 #endif /* STATIC */
 
 #include <linux/decompress/mm.h>
+#include <linux/nmi.h>
 
 #define	MIN(a, b) (((a) < (b)) ? (a) : (b))
 
@@ -648,6 +649,7 @@ STATIC inline int INIT unlzma(unsigned char *buf, int in_len,
 		}
 		if (rc.buffer_size <= 0)
 			goto exit_3;
+		touch_softlockup_watchdog();
 	}
 
 	if (posp)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Mike Lykov <combr@yandex.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
	kirill@shutemov.name
Subject: Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:40:33 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130130154033.GE98867@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5108EA4B.7030003@yandex.ru>

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 01:39:23PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
> 29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет:
> 
> >The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks
> >the softlockups.  If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could
> >accidentally trip the detection.
> 
> Inyerestingly, that a decompress of lzma -4 takes longer time than
> decompress lzma -9, and it stated in man lzma(1):
> "  On  the  same hardware, the decompression speed is approximately
> a constant number of bytes of compressed data per second.  In other
> words, the better the compression, the faster the  decompression
> will  usually  be. "
> 
> I tested it on target computer by hand:
> 
> lzma -4 compressed: time unlzma initram-alt-p6rel3-4.cpio.lzma
> 20.94user 1.47system 0:22:45elapsed 99%CPU (...19424maxresidents)k
> 
> lzma -9 compressed: time unlzma initram-alt-p6rel3-9.cpio.lzma
> 19.49user 1.92system 0:21:44elapsed 99%CPU (...241488maxresidents)k
> 
> So, it cannot "take too long" because not-working faster than working.
> Apparently time not matter, but algorithm complexity?
> 
> >>2. How to change watchdog_thresh parameter at boot without patching
> >>sources? If it necessary (with it side effects) maybe implement it
> >>as commandline parameter or config compile time parameter?
> >
> >I attached a patch below that allows you to set it a boot time.  Let me
> >know if this works for you, then I can clean it up and post it properly.
> 
> It not works for me. I apply this patch, build, use ("int
> __read_mostly watchdog_thresh = 10;"  as in original)
> command line:
> 
> [    0.000000] Kernel command line:
> initrd=initram-alt-p6rel3-9.cpio.lzma console=uart,io,0x240,115200n8
> kernel.watchdog_thresh=30

I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'.  Could you try
'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?

I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine.  Probably makes things
run a little slower.  Compiled tested only.

Cheers,
Don

diff --git a/lib/decompress_unlzma.c b/lib/decompress_unlzma.c
index 32adb73..313f4fa 100644
--- a/lib/decompress_unlzma.c
+++ b/lib/decompress_unlzma.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
 #endif /* STATIC */
 
 #include <linux/decompress/mm.h>
+#include <linux/nmi.h>
 
 #define	MIN(a, b) (((a) < (b)) ? (a) : (b))
 
@@ -648,6 +649,7 @@ STATIC inline int INIT unlzma(unsigned char *buf, int in_len,
 		}
 		if (rc.buffer_size <= 0)
 			goto exit_3;
+		touch_softlockup_watchdog();
 	}
 
 	if (posp)

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-30 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-29 13:42 [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu Mike Lykov
2013-01-29 15:33 ` Don Zickus
2013-01-29 17:18   ` anish kumar
2013-01-30 15:51     ` Don Zickus
2013-01-30 15:59       ` anish kumar
2013-01-29 23:59   ` Andrew Morton
2013-01-31 11:18     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-30  9:39   ` Mike Lykov
2013-01-30  9:39     ` Mike Lykov
2013-01-30 15:40     ` Don Zickus [this message]
2013-01-30 15:40       ` Don Zickus
2013-01-31 11:21       ` Mike Lykov
2013-01-31 11:21         ` Mike Lykov
2013-01-31 14:46         ` Don Zickus
2013-01-31 14:46           ` Don Zickus
2013-02-01 10:44           ` Mike Lykov
2013-02-01 15:59             ` Don Zickus
2013-02-01 15:59               ` Don Zickus
2013-02-01 16:43               ` Mike Lykov
2013-02-01 16:43                 ` Mike Lykov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130130154033.GE98867@redhat.com \
    --to=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=combr@yandex.ru \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.