Re: Warning in irq_work_queue_on()

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:11:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 09:58:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:03:51AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 12:24:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 11:50:22PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > > > > [  875.703227]  [<ffffffff810c2d74>] tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu+0x44/0x50
> > > > > 
> > > > > It happens in nohz full, but I'm not sure the guilty is nohz full.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The problem here is that wake_up_nohz_cpu() selects a CPU that is offline.
> > > > 
> > > > wake_up_nohz_cpu() doesn't do any such thing. Where does the selection
> > > > logic live?
> > > 
> > > Err, got confused with get_nohz_timer_target(). But yeah wake_up_nohz_cpu() is
> > > called with a CPU that is chosen by mod_timer() -> get_nohz_timer_target().
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > But this shouldn't happen. Either it selects a CPU that is in the domain tree,
> > > > > and I suspect offline CPUs aren't supposed to be there, or it selects the current
> > > > > CPU. And if the CPU is offlined, it shouldn't be running some kthread...
> > > > 
> > > > Do no assume things like that.. always check with the active mask.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, so perhaps we need something like this (makes me realize that
> > > the is_housekeeping_cpu() passes the wrong argument, no issue in practice
> > > since nohz full aren't in the domain tree but I still need to fix that along).
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index 0902e4d..2c10a69 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -628,7 +628,7 @@ int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
> > >  
> > >  	rcu_read_lock();
> > >  	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> > > -		for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sd)) {
> > > +		for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), cpu_online_mask) {
> > 
> > cpu_active_mask, we clear that when we start killing the cpu. online
> > only gets cleared once the cpu is actually dead.
> 
> So, after our discussion in IRC, I checked how domains are rebuild on hotplug
> ops and it appears that partition_sched_domain() is called on CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> only. The CPU shouldn't be on the domain tree after that.
> 
> (Correct me if I'm wrong, I really am not an expert in the domain handling code.
> As you said that we can't guarantee that a CPU in the domain tree is in the cpu_online_mask,
> I'm likely wrong somewhere).
> 
> This is then followed by synchronize_sched(). Which means that after that, the
> new version of the CPU domains (with the offlining CPU excluded) is visible
> everywhere while the CPU is still in cpu_online_mask.
> 
> And finally stop machine runs and the CPU is cleared out of cpu_online_mask.
> So I'm probably missing something, otherwise we could find a CPU in the domain
> tree that is not in cpu_online_mask.

OK, I have to ask...  Should I be trying Frederic's patch?

At the current failure rate, I will need to be running it for about
a year to give any reasonable conclusion.  :-/

							Thanx, Paul