From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Don't use complete() during __cpu_die
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:57:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150204175731.GH5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423068835-25470-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:53:55PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The complete() should not be used on offlined CPU. Rewrite the
> wait-complete mechanism with wait_on_bit_timeout().
>
> The CPU triggering hot unplug (e.g. CPU0) will loop until some bit is
> cleared. In each iteration schedule_timeout() is used with initial sleep
> time of 1 ms. Later it is increased to 10 ms.
>
> The dying CPU will clear the bit which is safe in that context.
>
> This fixes following RCU warning on ARMv8 (Exynos 4412, Trats2) during
> suspend to RAM:
>
> [ 31.113925] ===============================
> [ 31.113928] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [ 31.113935] 3.19.0-rc7-next-20150203 #1914 Not tainted
> [ 31.113938] -------------------------------
> [ 31.113943] kernel/sched/fair.c:4740 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> [ 31.113946]
> [ 31.113946] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 31.113946]
> [ 31.113952]
> [ 31.113952] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> [ 31.113952] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> [ 31.113957] 3 locks held by swapper/1/0:
> [ 31.113988] #0: ((cpu_died).wait.lock){......}, at: [<c005a114>] complete+0x14/0x44
> [ 31.114012] #1: (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<c004a790>] try_to_wake_up+0x28/0x300
> [ 31.114035] #2: (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<c004f1b8>] select_task_rq_fair+0x5c/0xa04
> [ 31.114038]
> [ 31.114038] stack backtrace:
> [ 31.114046] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.19.0-rc7-next-20150203 #1914
> [ 31.114050] Hardware name: SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree)
> [ 31.114076] [<c0014ce4>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011c30>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [ 31.114091] [<c0011c30>] (show_stack) from [<c04dc048>] (dump_stack+0x70/0xbc)
> [ 31.114105] [<c04dc048>] (dump_stack) from [<c004f83c>] (select_task_rq_fair+0x6e0/0xa04)
> [ 31.114118] [<c004f83c>] (select_task_rq_fair) from [<c004a83c>] (try_to_wake_up+0xd4/0x300)
> [ 31.114129] [<c004a83c>] (try_to_wake_up) from [<c00598a0>] (__wake_up_common+0x4c/0x80)
> [ 31.114140] [<c00598a0>] (__wake_up_common) from [<c00598e8>] (__wake_up_locked+0x14/0x1c)
> [ 31.114150] [<c00598e8>] (__wake_up_locked) from [<c005a134>] (complete+0x34/0x44)
> [ 31.114167] [<c005a134>] (complete) from [<c04d6ca4>] (cpu_die+0x24/0x84)
> [ 31.114179] [<c04d6ca4>] (cpu_die) from [<c005a508>] (cpu_startup_entry+0x328/0x358)
> [ 31.114189] [<c005a508>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<40008784>] (0x40008784)
> [ 31.114226] CPU1: shutdown
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
One suggestion below, but either way:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
(If you would rather that I carried the patch, please let me know.)
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> index 86ef244c5a24..bb8ff465975f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <linux/completion.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/irq_work.h>
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
>
> #include <linux/atomic.h>
> #include <asm/smp.h>
> @@ -76,6 +77,9 @@ enum ipi_msg_type {
>
> static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_running);
>
> +#define CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT 0
> +static unsigned long wait_cpu_die;
> +
> static struct smp_operations smp_ops;
>
> void __init smp_set_ops(struct smp_operations *ops)
> @@ -133,6 +137,8 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
> pr_err("CPU%u: failed to boot: %d\n", cpu, ret);
> }
>
> + set_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> memset(&secondary_data, 0, sizeof(secondary_data));
> return ret;
> @@ -213,7 +219,40 @@ int __cpu_disable(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_died);
> +/*
> + * Wait for 5000*1 ms for 'wait_cpu_die' bit to be cleared.
> + * Actually the real wait time will be longer because of schedule()
> + * called bit_wait_timeout.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 if bit was cleared (CPU died) or non-zero
> + * otherwise (1 or negative ERRNO).
> + */
> +static int wait_for_cpu_die(void)
> +{
> + int retries = 5000, sleep_ms = 1, ret = 0;
> +
> + might_sleep();
> +
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> + while (test_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die)) {
> + ret = out_of_line_wait_on_bit_timeout(&wait_cpu_die,
> + CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, bit_wait_timeout,
> + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
> + msecs_to_jiffies(sleep_ms));
> + if (!ret || (--retries <= 0))
> + break;
> +
> + if (retries < 4000) {
> + /* After ~1000 ms increase sleeping time to 10 ms */
> + retries = 400;
> + sleep_ms = 10;
> + }
Another approach that gets roughly the same response times with fewer
wakeups (and a bit less code) would be something like this:
int ms_left = 5000, sleep_ms = 1, ret = 0;
might_sleep();
smp_mb__before_atomic();
while (test_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die)) {
ret = out_of_line_wait_on_bit_timeout(&wait_cpu_die,
CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, bit_wait_timeout,
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
msecs_to_jiffies(sleep_ms));
ms_left -= sleep_ms;
if (!ret || (ms_left <= 0))
break;
sleep_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP(sleep_ms * 11, 10);
This would result in less than 50 wakeups compared to more than 4000,
with little added latency in the common case.
But either way works for me.
> +
> + smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* For next test_bit() in loop */
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
>
> /*
> * called on the thread which is asking for a CPU to be shutdown -
> @@ -221,7 +260,7 @@ static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_died);
> */
> void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&cpu_died, msecs_to_jiffies(5000))) {
> + if (wait_for_cpu_die()) {
> pr_err("CPU%u: cpu didn't die\n", cpu);
> return;
> }
> @@ -236,6 +275,10 @@ void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> */
> if (!platform_cpu_kill(cpu))
> pr_err("CPU%u: unable to kill\n", cpu);
> +
> + /* Prepare the bit for some next CPU die */
> + set_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -250,6 +293,8 @@ void __ref cpu_die(void)
> {
> unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> + WARN_ON(!test_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die));
> +
> idle_task_exit();
>
> local_irq_disable();
> @@ -267,7 +312,8 @@ void __ref cpu_die(void)
> * this returns, power and/or clocks can be removed at any point
> * from this CPU and its cache by platform_cpu_kill().
> */
> - complete(&cpu_died);
> + clear_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> /*
> * Ensure that the cache lines associated with that completion are
> --
> 1.9.1
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Don't use complete() during __cpu_die
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:57:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150204175731.GH5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423068835-25470-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 05:53:55PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> The complete() should not be used on offlined CPU. Rewrite the
> wait-complete mechanism with wait_on_bit_timeout().
>
> The CPU triggering hot unplug (e.g. CPU0) will loop until some bit is
> cleared. In each iteration schedule_timeout() is used with initial sleep
> time of 1 ms. Later it is increased to 10 ms.
>
> The dying CPU will clear the bit which is safe in that context.
>
> This fixes following RCU warning on ARMv8 (Exynos 4412, Trats2) during
> suspend to RAM:
>
> [ 31.113925] ===============================
> [ 31.113928] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [ 31.113935] 3.19.0-rc7-next-20150203 #1914 Not tainted
> [ 31.113938] -------------------------------
> [ 31.113943] kernel/sched/fair.c:4740 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> [ 31.113946]
> [ 31.113946] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 31.113946]
> [ 31.113952]
> [ 31.113952] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> [ 31.113952] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> [ 31.113957] 3 locks held by swapper/1/0:
> [ 31.113988] #0: ((cpu_died).wait.lock){......}, at: [<c005a114>] complete+0x14/0x44
> [ 31.114012] #1: (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<c004a790>] try_to_wake_up+0x28/0x300
> [ 31.114035] #2: (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<c004f1b8>] select_task_rq_fair+0x5c/0xa04
> [ 31.114038]
> [ 31.114038] stack backtrace:
> [ 31.114046] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.19.0-rc7-next-20150203 #1914
> [ 31.114050] Hardware name: SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree)
> [ 31.114076] [<c0014ce4>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011c30>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> [ 31.114091] [<c0011c30>] (show_stack) from [<c04dc048>] (dump_stack+0x70/0xbc)
> [ 31.114105] [<c04dc048>] (dump_stack) from [<c004f83c>] (select_task_rq_fair+0x6e0/0xa04)
> [ 31.114118] [<c004f83c>] (select_task_rq_fair) from [<c004a83c>] (try_to_wake_up+0xd4/0x300)
> [ 31.114129] [<c004a83c>] (try_to_wake_up) from [<c00598a0>] (__wake_up_common+0x4c/0x80)
> [ 31.114140] [<c00598a0>] (__wake_up_common) from [<c00598e8>] (__wake_up_locked+0x14/0x1c)
> [ 31.114150] [<c00598e8>] (__wake_up_locked) from [<c005a134>] (complete+0x34/0x44)
> [ 31.114167] [<c005a134>] (complete) from [<c04d6ca4>] (cpu_die+0x24/0x84)
> [ 31.114179] [<c04d6ca4>] (cpu_die) from [<c005a508>] (cpu_startup_entry+0x328/0x358)
> [ 31.114189] [<c005a508>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<40008784>] (0x40008784)
> [ 31.114226] CPU1: shutdown
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
One suggestion below, but either way:
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
(If you would rather that I carried the patch, please let me know.)
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> index 86ef244c5a24..bb8ff465975f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <linux/completion.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/irq_work.h>
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
>
> #include <linux/atomic.h>
> #include <asm/smp.h>
> @@ -76,6 +77,9 @@ enum ipi_msg_type {
>
> static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_running);
>
> +#define CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT 0
> +static unsigned long wait_cpu_die;
> +
> static struct smp_operations smp_ops;
>
> void __init smp_set_ops(struct smp_operations *ops)
> @@ -133,6 +137,8 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
> pr_err("CPU%u: failed to boot: %d\n", cpu, ret);
> }
>
> + set_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> memset(&secondary_data, 0, sizeof(secondary_data));
> return ret;
> @@ -213,7 +219,40 @@ int __cpu_disable(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_died);
> +/*
> + * Wait for 5000*1 ms for 'wait_cpu_die' bit to be cleared.
> + * Actually the real wait time will be longer because of schedule()
> + * called bit_wait_timeout.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 if bit was cleared (CPU died) or non-zero
> + * otherwise (1 or negative ERRNO).
> + */
> +static int wait_for_cpu_die(void)
> +{
> + int retries = 5000, sleep_ms = 1, ret = 0;
> +
> + might_sleep();
> +
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> + while (test_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die)) {
> + ret = out_of_line_wait_on_bit_timeout(&wait_cpu_die,
> + CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, bit_wait_timeout,
> + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
> + msecs_to_jiffies(sleep_ms));
> + if (!ret || (--retries <= 0))
> + break;
> +
> + if (retries < 4000) {
> + /* After ~1000 ms increase sleeping time to 10 ms */
> + retries = 400;
> + sleep_ms = 10;
> + }
Another approach that gets roughly the same response times with fewer
wakeups (and a bit less code) would be something like this:
int ms_left = 5000, sleep_ms = 1, ret = 0;
might_sleep();
smp_mb__before_atomic();
while (test_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die)) {
ret = out_of_line_wait_on_bit_timeout(&wait_cpu_die,
CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, bit_wait_timeout,
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE,
msecs_to_jiffies(sleep_ms));
ms_left -= sleep_ms;
if (!ret || (ms_left <= 0))
break;
sleep_ms = DIV_ROUND_UP(sleep_ms * 11, 10);
This would result in less than 50 wakeups compared to more than 4000,
with little added latency in the common case.
But either way works for me.
> +
> + smp_mb__before_atomic(); /* For next test_bit() in loop */
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
>
> /*
> * called on the thread which is asking for a CPU to be shutdown -
> @@ -221,7 +260,7 @@ static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_died);
> */
> void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&cpu_died, msecs_to_jiffies(5000))) {
> + if (wait_for_cpu_die()) {
> pr_err("CPU%u: cpu didn't die\n", cpu);
> return;
> }
> @@ -236,6 +275,10 @@ void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> */
> if (!platform_cpu_kill(cpu))
> pr_err("CPU%u: unable to kill\n", cpu);
> +
> + /* Prepare the bit for some next CPU die */
> + set_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -250,6 +293,8 @@ void __ref cpu_die(void)
> {
> unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
> + WARN_ON(!test_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die));
> +
> idle_task_exit();
>
> local_irq_disable();
> @@ -267,7 +312,8 @@ void __ref cpu_die(void)
> * this returns, power and/or clocks can be removed at any point
> * from this CPU and its cache by platform_cpu_kill().
> */
> - complete(&cpu_died);
> + clear_bit(CPU_DIE_WAIT_BIT, &wait_cpu_die);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>
> /*
> * Ensure that the cache lines associated with that completion are
> --
> 1.9.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-04 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-04 16:53 [PATCH] ARM: Don't use complete() during __cpu_die Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 16:53 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 17:57 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2015-02-04 17:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-02-05 7:46 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-05 7:46 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-04 22:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-04 22:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-05 7:54 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-02-05 7:54 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
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=20150204175731.GH5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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.