All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:52:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160630165248.GB4650@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1606301752410.6474@ayla.of.borg>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:31:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:58:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:12:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 07:52:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > >> >> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:54:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > >> >> > >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:47:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > [ . . . ]
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >> > @@ -4720,11 +4720,18 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > >> >> > >> >                         pr_info(" ");
> > > >> >> > >> >                         level = rnp->level;
> > > >> >> > >> >                 }
> > > >> >> > >> > -               pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> > > >> >> > >> > +               pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> > > >> >> > >> > +                       rnp->qsmask,
> > > >> >> > >> > +                       rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
> > > >> >> > >> >         }
> > > >> >> > >> >         pr_cont("\n");
> > > >> >> > >> >  }
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> For me it always crashes during the 37th call of synchronize_sched() in
> > > >> >> > >> setup_kmem_cache_node(), which is the first call after secondary CPU bring up.
> > > >> >> > >> With your and my debug code, I get:
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> > > >> >> > >>   Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> > > >> >> > >>   cnt = 36, sync
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> > > >> >> > >>   Brought up 2 CPUs
> > > >> >> > >>   SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> > > >> >> > >>   rcu_node tree layout dump
> > > >> >> > >>    0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thank you for running this!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > OK, so RCU knows about both CPUs (the "0x3"), and the previous
> > > >> >> > > grace period has seen quiescent states from both of them (the "0x0").
> > > >> >> > > That would indicate that your synchronize_sched() showed up when RCU was
> > > >> >> > > idle, so it had to start a new grace period.  It also rules out failure
> > > >> >> > > modes where RCU thinks that there are more CPUs than really exist.
> > > >> >> > > (Don't laugh, such things have really happened.)
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >>   devtmpfs: initialized
> > > >> >> > >>   VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> > > >> >> > >>   clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> > > >> >> > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> I hope it helps. Thanks!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I am going to guess that this was the first grace period since the second
> > > >> >> > > CPU came online.  When there only on CPU online, synchronize_sched()
> > > >> >> > > is a no-op.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > OK, this showed some things that aren't a problem.  What might the
> > > >> >> > > problem be?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       The grace-period kthread has not yet started.  It -should- start
> > > >> >> > >         at early_initcall() time, but who knows?  Adding code to print
> > > >> >> > >         out that kthread's task_struct address.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       The grace-period kthread might not be responding to wakeups.
> > > >> >> > >         Checking this requires that a grace period be in progress,
> > > >> >> > >         so please put a call_rcu_sched() just before the call to
> > > >> >> > >         rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree().  (Sample code below.)  Adding code
> > > >> >> > >         to my patch to print out more GP-kthread state as well.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       One of the CPUs might not be responding to RCU.  That -should-
> > > >> >> > >         result in an RCU CPU stall warning, so I will ignore this
> > > >> >> > >         possibility for the moment.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >         That said, do you have some way to determine whether scheduling
> > > >> >> > >         clock interrupts are really happening?  Without these interrupts,
> > > >> >> > >         no RCU CPU stall warnings.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I believe there are no clocksources yet. The jiffies clocksource is the first
> > > >> >> > clocksource found, and that happens after the first call to
> > > >> >> > synchronize_sched(), cfr. my dmesg snippet above.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > In a working boot:
> > > >> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/available_clocksource
> > > >> >> > e0180000.timer jiffies
> > > >> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> > > >> >> > e0180000.timer
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Ah!  But if there is no jiffies clocksource, then schedule_timeout()
> > > >> >> and friends will never return, correct?  If so, I guarantee you that
> > > >> >> synchronize_sched() will unconditionally hang.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So if I understand correctly, the fix is to get the jiffies clocksource
> > > >> >> running before the first call to synchronize_sched().
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If so, following change would be sufficient.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ------>8-------
> > > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > index 555e21f..4f6471f 100644
> > > >> > --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
> > > >> >         return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
> > > >> >  }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > > >> > +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
> > > >> >  {
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your patch!
> > > >>
> > > >> While this does move jiffies clocksource initialization before secondary CPU
> > > >> bringup, it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or synchronize_sched():
> > > >>
> > > >>   CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> > > >>   CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> > > >>   Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> > > >>   cnt = 36, sync
> > > >>   clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> > > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> > > >>   CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> > > >>   Brought up 2 CPUs
> > > >>   SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> > > >>   CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> > > >>   RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> > > >>        jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
> > > >>   rcu_node tree layout dump
> > > >>    0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> > > >
> > > > This is in fact the initial state for RCU grace periods.  In other words,
> > > > all the earlier calls to synchronize_sched() likely happened while there
> > > > was only one CPU online.
> > > >
> > > >>   devtmpfs: initialized
> > > >>   VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> > > >
> > > > Could you please add the call_rcu() and timed delay as described in my
> > > > earlier email?  That would hopefully help me see the state of the stalled
> > > > grace period.
> > > 
> > > I already did, cfr. "it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or
> > > synchronize_sched()".
> > 
> > Ah, sorry for my inattention.
> > 
> > I am a bit surprised that it could hang when calling call_rcu(), given
> > that call_rcu() is callable from atomic contexts.  Could you please show
> > me the current test code you have?
> > 
> > If the hang is in call_rcu(), could you please try disabling irqs across
> > the call to call_rcu()?
> 
> These are my local changes:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index c7f1bc4f817c4a34..50bea263e510006f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4707,11 +4707,16 @@ static void __init rcu_init_geometry(void)
>   * Dump out the structure of the rcu_node combining tree associated
>   * with the rcu_state structure referenced by rsp.
>   */
> -static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> +static void rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  {
>  	int level = 0;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> 
> +	pr_info("RCU: %s GP kthread: %p state: %d flags: %#x g:%ld c:%ld\n",
> +		rsp->name, rsp->gp_kthread, rsp->gp_state, rsp->gp_flags,
> +		(long)rsp->gpnum, (long)rsp->completed);
> +	pr_info("     jiffies: %#lx  GP start: %#lx Last GP activity: %#lx\n",
> +		jiffies, rsp->gp_start, rsp->gp_activity);
>  	pr_info("rcu_node tree layout dump\n");
>  	pr_info(" ");
>  	rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> @@ -4720,11 +4725,32 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  			pr_info(" ");
>  			level = rnp->level;
>  		}
> -		pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> +		pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> +			rnp->qsmask,
> +			rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
>  	}
>  	pr_cont("\n");
>  }
> 
> +static void do_nothing_cb(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(void)
> +{
> +	struct rcu_head rh;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(&rcu_sched_state);  /* Initial state. */
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	// call_rcu(&rh, do_nothing_cb);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +	// schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(5 * HZ);  /* Or whatever delay. */
> +	rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(&rcu_sched_state); /* GP state. */
> +	//synchronize_sched();  /* Probably hangs. */
> +	//rcu_barrier();  /* Drop RCU's references to rh before return. */
> +}
> +
>  void __init rcu_init(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
> diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> index 555e21f7b966c789..4f6471f54f69a6fe 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
>  	return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
>  }
> 
> -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> 
>  struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
>  {
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index cc8bbc1e6bc9b6fe..f9b2f50adc705173 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -909,6 +909,8 @@ static int init_cache_node_node(int node)
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +extern void rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(void);
> +
>  static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  				int node, gfp_t gfp, bool force_change)
>  {
> @@ -964,8 +966,19 @@ static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  	 * guaranteed to be valid until irq is re-enabled, because it will be
>  	 * freed after synchronize_sched().
>  	 */
> -	if (force_change)
> -		synchronize_sched();
> +	if (force_change) {
> +		static int cnt;
> +
> +		if (++cnt < 37) {
> +printk("cnt = %d, sync\n", cnt);
> +			synchronize_sched();
> +		} else if (cnt == 37) {
> +printk("cnt = %d, dump\n", cnt);
> +			rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree();
> +		} else {
> +printk("cnt = %d\n", cnt);
> +		}
> +	}
> 
>  fail:
>  	kfree(old_shared);
> 
> 
> With this it boots fine:
> 
>     ...
>     cnt = 35, sync
>     CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
>     CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
>     Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
>     cnt = 36, sync
>     clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
>     CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
>     Brought up 2 CPUs
>     SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
>     CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
>     cnt = 37, dump
>     RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> 	 jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
>     rcu_node tree layout dump
>      0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0  
>     RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> 	 jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
>     rcu_node tree layout dump
>      0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0  
>     devtmpfs: initialized
>     VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
>     cnt = 38
>     cnt = 39
>     ...
> 
> When enabling any of the 4 commented-out lines in rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(),
> it will lock up.

OK, but that includes schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(5 * HZ), right?

If schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() hangs, RCU grace periods have no
chance of completing.

I am still surprised that call_rcu() hangs, but timed wait not working
will definitely cause RCU grace-period hangs.  Perhaps fixing timed
waits will also prevent the call_rcu() hang.

							Thanx, Paul

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:52:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160630165248.GB4650@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1606301752410.6474@ayla.of.borg>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:31:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:58:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:12:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 07:52:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > >> >> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:54:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > >> >> > >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:47:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > [ . . . ]
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >> > @@ -4720,11 +4720,18 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > >> >> > >> >                         pr_info(" ");
> > > >> >> > >> >                         level = rnp->level;
> > > >> >> > >> >                 }
> > > >> >> > >> > -               pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> > > >> >> > >> > +               pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> > > >> >> > >> > +                       rnp->qsmask,
> > > >> >> > >> > +                       rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
> > > >> >> > >> >         }
> > > >> >> > >> >         pr_cont("\n");
> > > >> >> > >> >  }
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> For me it always crashes during the 37th call of synchronize_sched() in
> > > >> >> > >> setup_kmem_cache_node(), which is the first call after secondary CPU bring up.
> > > >> >> > >> With your and my debug code, I get:
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> > > >> >> > >>   Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> > > >> >> > >>   cnt = 36, sync
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> > > >> >> > >>   Brought up 2 CPUs
> > > >> >> > >>   SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> > > >> >> > >>   rcu_node tree layout dump
> > > >> >> > >>    0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thank you for running this!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > OK, so RCU knows about both CPUs (the "0x3"), and the previous
> > > >> >> > > grace period has seen quiescent states from both of them (the "0x0").
> > > >> >> > > That would indicate that your synchronize_sched() showed up when RCU was
> > > >> >> > > idle, so it had to start a new grace period.  It also rules out failure
> > > >> >> > > modes where RCU thinks that there are more CPUs than really exist.
> > > >> >> > > (Don't laugh, such things have really happened.)
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >>   devtmpfs: initialized
> > > >> >> > >>   VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> > > >> >> > >>   clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> > > >> >> > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> I hope it helps. Thanks!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I am going to guess that this was the first grace period since the second
> > > >> >> > > CPU came online.  When there only on CPU online, synchronize_sched()
> > > >> >> > > is a no-op.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > OK, this showed some things that aren't a problem.  What might the
> > > >> >> > > problem be?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       The grace-period kthread has not yet started.  It -should- start
> > > >> >> > >         at early_initcall() time, but who knows?  Adding code to print
> > > >> >> > >         out that kthread's task_struct address.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       The grace-period kthread might not be responding to wakeups.
> > > >> >> > >         Checking this requires that a grace period be in progress,
> > > >> >> > >         so please put a call_rcu_sched() just before the call to
> > > >> >> > >         rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree().  (Sample code below.)  Adding code
> > > >> >> > >         to my patch to print out more GP-kthread state as well.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       One of the CPUs might not be responding to RCU.  That -should-
> > > >> >> > >         result in an RCU CPU stall warning, so I will ignore this
> > > >> >> > >         possibility for the moment.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >         That said, do you have some way to determine whether scheduling
> > > >> >> > >         clock interrupts are really happening?  Without these interrupts,
> > > >> >> > >         no RCU CPU stall warnings.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I believe there are no clocksources yet. The jiffies clocksource is the first
> > > >> >> > clocksource found, and that happens after the first call to
> > > >> >> > synchronize_sched(), cfr. my dmesg snippet above.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > In a working boot:
> > > >> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/available_clocksource
> > > >> >> > e0180000.timer jiffies
> > > >> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> > > >> >> > e0180000.timer
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Ah!  But if there is no jiffies clocksource, then schedule_timeout()
> > > >> >> and friends will never return, correct?  If so, I guarantee you that
> > > >> >> synchronize_sched() will unconditionally hang.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So if I understand correctly, the fix is to get the jiffies clocksource
> > > >> >> running before the first call to synchronize_sched().
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If so, following change would be sufficient.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ------>8-------
> > > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > index 555e21f..4f6471f 100644
> > > >> > --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
> > > >> >         return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
> > > >> >  }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > > >> > +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
> > > >> >  {
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your patch!
> > > >>
> > > >> While this does move jiffies clocksource initialization before secondary CPU
> > > >> bringup, it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or synchronize_sched():
> > > >>
> > > >>   CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> > > >>   CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> > > >>   Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> > > >>   cnt = 36, sync
> > > >>   clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> > > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> > > >>   CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> > > >>   Brought up 2 CPUs
> > > >>   SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> > > >>   CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> > > >>   RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> > > >>        jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
> > > >>   rcu_node tree layout dump
> > > >>    0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> > > >
> > > > This is in fact the initial state for RCU grace periods.  In other words,
> > > > all the earlier calls to synchronize_sched() likely happened while there
> > > > was only one CPU online.
> > > >
> > > >>   devtmpfs: initialized
> > > >>   VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> > > >
> > > > Could you please add the call_rcu() and timed delay as described in my
> > > > earlier email?  That would hopefully help me see the state of the stalled
> > > > grace period.
> > > 
> > > I already did, cfr. "it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or
> > > synchronize_sched()".
> > 
> > Ah, sorry for my inattention.
> > 
> > I am a bit surprised that it could hang when calling call_rcu(), given
> > that call_rcu() is callable from atomic contexts.  Could you please show
> > me the current test code you have?
> > 
> > If the hang is in call_rcu(), could you please try disabling irqs across
> > the call to call_rcu()?
> 
> These are my local changes:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index c7f1bc4f817c4a34..50bea263e510006f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4707,11 +4707,16 @@ static void __init rcu_init_geometry(void)
>   * Dump out the structure of the rcu_node combining tree associated
>   * with the rcu_state structure referenced by rsp.
>   */
> -static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> +static void rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  {
>  	int level = 0;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> 
> +	pr_info("RCU: %s GP kthread: %p state: %d flags: %#x g:%ld c:%ld\n",
> +		rsp->name, rsp->gp_kthread, rsp->gp_state, rsp->gp_flags,
> +		(long)rsp->gpnum, (long)rsp->completed);
> +	pr_info("     jiffies: %#lx  GP start: %#lx Last GP activity: %#lx\n",
> +		jiffies, rsp->gp_start, rsp->gp_activity);
>  	pr_info("rcu_node tree layout dump\n");
>  	pr_info(" ");
>  	rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> @@ -4720,11 +4725,32 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  			pr_info(" ");
>  			level = rnp->level;
>  		}
> -		pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> +		pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> +			rnp->qsmask,
> +			rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
>  	}
>  	pr_cont("\n");
>  }
> 
> +static void do_nothing_cb(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(void)
> +{
> +	struct rcu_head rh;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(&rcu_sched_state);  /* Initial state. */
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	// call_rcu(&rh, do_nothing_cb);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +	// schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(5 * HZ);  /* Or whatever delay. */
> +	rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(&rcu_sched_state); /* GP state. */
> +	//synchronize_sched();  /* Probably hangs. */
> +	//rcu_barrier();  /* Drop RCU's references to rh before return. */
> +}
> +
>  void __init rcu_init(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
> diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> index 555e21f7b966c789..4f6471f54f69a6fe 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
>  	return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
>  }
> 
> -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> 
>  struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
>  {
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index cc8bbc1e6bc9b6fe..f9b2f50adc705173 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -909,6 +909,8 @@ static int init_cache_node_node(int node)
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +extern void rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(void);
> +
>  static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  				int node, gfp_t gfp, bool force_change)
>  {
> @@ -964,8 +966,19 @@ static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  	 * guaranteed to be valid until irq is re-enabled, because it will be
>  	 * freed after synchronize_sched().
>  	 */
> -	if (force_change)
> -		synchronize_sched();
> +	if (force_change) {
> +		static int cnt;
> +
> +		if (++cnt < 37) {
> +printk("cnt = %d, sync\n", cnt);
> +			synchronize_sched();
> +		} else if (cnt == 37) {
> +printk("cnt = %d, dump\n", cnt);
> +			rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree();
> +		} else {
> +printk("cnt = %d\n", cnt);
> +		}
> +	}
> 
>  fail:
>  	kfree(old_shared);
> 
> 
> With this it boots fine:
> 
>     ...
>     cnt = 35, sync
>     CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
>     CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
>     Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
>     cnt = 36, sync
>     clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
>     CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
>     Brought up 2 CPUs
>     SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
>     CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
>     cnt = 37, dump
>     RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> 	 jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
>     rcu_node tree layout dump
>      0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0  
>     RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> 	 jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
>     rcu_node tree layout dump
>      0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0  
>     devtmpfs: initialized
>     VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
>     cnt = 38
>     cnt = 39
>     ...
> 
> When enabling any of the 4 commented-out lines in rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(),
> it will lock up.

OK, but that includes schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(5 * HZ), right?

If schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() hangs, RCU grace periods have no
chance of completing.

I am still surprised that call_rcu() hangs, but timed wait not working
will definitely cause RCU grace-period hangs.  Perhaps fixing timed
waits will also prevent the call_rcu() hang.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:52:48 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160630165248.GB4650@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1606301752410.6474@ayla.of.borg>

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 05:53:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 03:31:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:58:51AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:12:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 07:52:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > >> >> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:54:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > >> >> > >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 07:47:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > [ . . . ]
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >> > @@ -4720,11 +4720,18 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > >> >> > >> >                         pr_info(" ");
> > > >> >> > >> >                         level = rnp->level;
> > > >> >> > >> >                 }
> > > >> >> > >> > -               pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> > > >> >> > >> > +               pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> > > >> >> > >> > +                       rnp->qsmask,
> > > >> >> > >> > +                       rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
> > > >> >> > >> >         }
> > > >> >> > >> >         pr_cont("\n");
> > > >> >> > >> >  }
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> For me it always crashes during the 37th call of synchronize_sched() in
> > > >> >> > >> setup_kmem_cache_node(), which is the first call after secondary CPU bring up.
> > > >> >> > >> With your and my debug code, I get:
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> > > >> >> > >>   Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> > > >> >> > >>   cnt = 36, sync
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> > > >> >> > >>   Brought up 2 CPUs
> > > >> >> > >>   SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> > > >> >> > >>   CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> > > >> >> > >>   rcu_node tree layout dump
> > > >> >> > >>    0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thank you for running this!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > OK, so RCU knows about both CPUs (the "0x3"), and the previous
> > > >> >> > > grace period has seen quiescent states from both of them (the "0x0").
> > > >> >> > > That would indicate that your synchronize_sched() showed up when RCU was
> > > >> >> > > idle, so it had to start a new grace period.  It also rules out failure
> > > >> >> > > modes where RCU thinks that there are more CPUs than really exist.
> > > >> >> > > (Don't laugh, such things have really happened.)
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >>   devtmpfs: initialized
> > > >> >> > >>   VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> > > >> >> > >>   clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> > > >> >> > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> I hope it helps. Thanks!
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I am going to guess that this was the first grace period since the second
> > > >> >> > > CPU came online.  When there only on CPU online, synchronize_sched()
> > > >> >> > > is a no-op.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > OK, this showed some things that aren't a problem.  What might the
> > > >> >> > > problem be?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       The grace-period kthread has not yet started.  It -should- start
> > > >> >> > >         at early_initcall() time, but who knows?  Adding code to print
> > > >> >> > >         out that kthread's task_struct address.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       The grace-period kthread might not be responding to wakeups.
> > > >> >> > >         Checking this requires that a grace period be in progress,
> > > >> >> > >         so please put a call_rcu_sched() just before the call to
> > > >> >> > >         rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree().  (Sample code below.)  Adding code
> > > >> >> > >         to my patch to print out more GP-kthread state as well.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > o       One of the CPUs might not be responding to RCU.  That -should-
> > > >> >> > >         result in an RCU CPU stall warning, so I will ignore this
> > > >> >> > >         possibility for the moment.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >         That said, do you have some way to determine whether scheduling
> > > >> >> > >         clock interrupts are really happening?  Without these interrupts,
> > > >> >> > >         no RCU CPU stall warnings.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I believe there are no clocksources yet. The jiffies clocksource is the first
> > > >> >> > clocksource found, and that happens after the first call to
> > > >> >> > synchronize_sched(), cfr. my dmesg snippet above.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > In a working boot:
> > > >> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/available_clocksource
> > > >> >> > e0180000.timer jiffies
> > > >> >> > # cat /sys/bus/clocksource/devices/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> > > >> >> > e0180000.timer
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Ah!  But if there is no jiffies clocksource, then schedule_timeout()
> > > >> >> and friends will never return, correct?  If so, I guarantee you that
> > > >> >> synchronize_sched() will unconditionally hang.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So if I understand correctly, the fix is to get the jiffies clocksource
> > > >> >> running before the first call to synchronize_sched().
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If so, following change would be sufficient.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ------>8-------
> > > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > index 555e21f..4f6471f 100644
> > > >> > --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> > > >> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
> > > >> >         return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
> > > >> >  }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > > >> > +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
> > > >> >  {
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your patch!
> > > >>
> > > >> While this does move jiffies clocksource initialization before secondary CPU
> > > >> bringup, it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or synchronize_sched():
> > > >>
> > > >>   CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> > > >>   CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> > > >>   Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
> > > >>   cnt = 36, sync
> > > >>   clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff,
> > > >> max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
> > > >>   CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> > > >>   Brought up 2 CPUs
> > > >>   SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
> > > >>   CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> > > >>   RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> > > >>        jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
> > > >>   rcu_node tree layout dump
> > > >>    0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0
> > > >
> > > > This is in fact the initial state for RCU grace periods.  In other words,
> > > > all the earlier calls to synchronize_sched() likely happened while there
> > > > was only one CPU online.
> > > >
> > > >>   devtmpfs: initialized
> > > >>   VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
> > > >
> > > > Could you please add the call_rcu() and timed delay as described in my
> > > > earlier email?  That would hopefully help me see the state of the stalled
> > > > grace period.
> > > 
> > > I already did, cfr. "it still hangs when calling call_rcu() or
> > > synchronize_sched()".
> > 
> > Ah, sorry for my inattention.
> > 
> > I am a bit surprised that it could hang when calling call_rcu(), given
> > that call_rcu() is callable from atomic contexts.  Could you please show
> > me the current test code you have?
> > 
> > If the hang is in call_rcu(), could you please try disabling irqs across
> > the call to call_rcu()?
> 
> These are my local changes:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index c7f1bc4f817c4a34..50bea263e510006f 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -4707,11 +4707,16 @@ static void __init rcu_init_geometry(void)
>   * Dump out the structure of the rcu_node combining tree associated
>   * with the rcu_state structure referenced by rsp.
>   */
> -static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> +static void rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  {
>  	int level = 0;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> 
> +	pr_info("RCU: %s GP kthread: %p state: %d flags: %#x g:%ld c:%ld\n",
> +		rsp->name, rsp->gp_kthread, rsp->gp_state, rsp->gp_flags,
> +		(long)rsp->gpnum, (long)rsp->completed);
> +	pr_info("     jiffies: %#lx  GP start: %#lx Last GP activity: %#lx\n",
> +		jiffies, rsp->gp_start, rsp->gp_activity);
>  	pr_info("rcu_node tree layout dump\n");
>  	pr_info(" ");
>  	rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> @@ -4720,11 +4725,32 @@ static void __init rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(struct rcu_state *rsp)
>  			pr_info(" ");
>  			level = rnp->level;
>  		}
> -		pr_cont("%d:%d ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi, rnp->grpnum);
> +		pr_cont("%d:%d/%#lx/%#lx ^%d  ", rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> +			rnp->qsmask,
> +			rnp->qsmaskinit | rnp->qsmaskinitnext, rnp->grpnum);
>  	}
>  	pr_cont("\n");
>  }
> 
> +static void do_nothing_cb(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(void)
> +{
> +	struct rcu_head rh;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(&rcu_sched_state);  /* Initial state. */
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	// call_rcu(&rh, do_nothing_cb);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +	// schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(5 * HZ);  /* Or whatever delay. */
> +	rcu_dump_rcu_node_tree(&rcu_sched_state); /* GP state. */
> +	//synchronize_sched();  /* Probably hangs. */
> +	//rcu_barrier();  /* Drop RCU's references to rh before return. */
> +}
> +
>  void __init rcu_init(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
> diff --git a/kernel/time/jiffies.c b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> index 555e21f7b966c789..4f6471f54f69a6fe 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/jiffies.c
> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static int __init init_jiffies_clocksource(void)
>  	return __clocksource_register(&clocksource_jiffies);
>  }
> 
> -core_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> +early_initcall(init_jiffies_clocksource);
> 
>  struct clocksource * __init __weak clocksource_default_clock(void)
>  {
> diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
> index cc8bbc1e6bc9b6fe..f9b2f50adc705173 100644
> --- a/mm/slab.c
> +++ b/mm/slab.c
> @@ -909,6 +909,8 @@ static int init_cache_node_node(int node)
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 
> +extern void rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(void);
> +
>  static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  				int node, gfp_t gfp, bool force_change)
>  {
> @@ -964,8 +966,19 @@ static int setup_kmem_cache_node(struct kmem_cache *cachep,
>  	 * guaranteed to be valid until irq is re-enabled, because it will be
>  	 * freed after synchronize_sched().
>  	 */
> -	if (force_change)
> -		synchronize_sched();
> +	if (force_change) {
> +		static int cnt;
> +
> +		if (++cnt < 37) {
> +printk("cnt = %d, sync\n", cnt);
> +			synchronize_sched();
> +		} else if (cnt == 37) {
> +printk("cnt = %d, dump\n", cnt);
> +			rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree();
> +		} else {
> +printk("cnt = %d\n", cnt);
> +		}
> +	}
> 
>  fail:
>  	kfree(old_shared);
> 
> 
> With this it boots fine:
> 
>     ...
>     cnt = 35, sync
>     CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
>     CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
>     Setting up static identity map for 0x40100000 - 0x40100058
>     cnt = 36, sync
>     clocksource: jiffies: mask: 0xffffffff max_cycles: 0xffffffff, max_idle_ns: 19112604462750000 ns
>     CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
>     Brought up 2 CPUs
>     SMP: Total of 2 processors activated (2132.00 BogoMIPS).
>     CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
>     cnt = 37, dump
>     RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> 	 jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
>     rcu_node tree layout dump
>      0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0  
>     RCU: rcu_sched GP kthread: c784e1c0 state: 1 flags: 0x0 g:-300 c:-300
> 	 jiffies: 0xffff8ad0  GP start: 0x0 Last GP activity: 0x0
>     rcu_node tree layout dump
>      0:1/0x0/0x3 ^0  
>     devtmpfs: initialized
>     VFP support v0.3: implementor 41 architecture 3 part 30 variant 9 rev 1
>     cnt = 38
>     cnt = 39
>     ...
> 
> When enabling any of the 4 commented-out lines in rcu_dump_rcu_sched_tree(),
> it will lock up.

OK, but that includes schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(5 * HZ), right?

If schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() hangs, RCU grace periods have no
chance of completing.

I am still surprised that call_rcu() hangs, but timed wait not working
will definitely cause RCU grace-period hangs.  Perhaps fixing timed
waits will also prevent the call_rcu() hang.

							Thanx, Paul

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-30 16:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-13 19:43 Boot failure on emev2/kzm9d (was: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm/slab: lockless decision to grow cache) Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14  6:24 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-14  6:24   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-14  6:24   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-14  7:31   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14  7:31     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14  7:31     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14  8:11     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-14  8:11       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-14  8:11       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-14 10:45       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14 10:45         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14 10:45         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-15  2:23         ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-15  2:23           ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-15  2:23           ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-15  8:39           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-15  8:39             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-15  8:39             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-20  6:39             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-20  6:39               ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-20  6:39               ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-20 13:12               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-20 13:12                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-20 13:12                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-21  6:43                 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-21  6:43                   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-21  6:43                   ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-21 12:54                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-21 12:54                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-21 12:54                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-22  0:52                     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-22  0:52                       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-22  0:52                       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-22  3:15                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-22  3:15                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-22  3:15                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-22 15:01                       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-22 15:01                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-22 15:01                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-22 19:08                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-22 19:08                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-22 19:08                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  0:49                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  0:49                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  0:49                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  2:37                             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-23  2:37                               ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-23  2:37                               ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-23  2:47                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  2:47                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  2:47                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  2:53                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  2:53                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-23  2:53                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-28  0:12                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-28  0:12                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-28  0:12                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-28  8:33                                     ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-28  8:33                                       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-28  8:33                                       ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-29 14:54                                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-29 14:54                                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-29 14:54                                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-29 16:44                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-29 16:44                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-29 16:44                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-29 17:52                                       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-29 17:52                                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-29 17:52                                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-29 18:12                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-29 18:12                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-29 18:12                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30  7:47                                           ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-30  7:47                                             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-30  7:47                                             ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-06-30  7:58                                             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30  7:58                                               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30  7:58                                               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 13:24                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 13:24                                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 13:24                                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 13:31                                                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 13:31                                                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 13:31                                                   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 15:18                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 15:18                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 15:18                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 15:53                                                     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 15:53                                                       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 15:53                                                       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 16:52                                                       ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-06-30 16:52                                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 16:52                                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-06-30 17:54                                                         ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 17:54                                                           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-30 17:54                                                           ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14 13:10 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14 13:10   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-06-14 13:10   ` Geert Uytterhoeven

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=20160630165248.GB4650@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.