From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Donald Buczek <buczek@molgen.mpg.de>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
dvteam@molgen.mpg.de, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks with `kswapd` and `mem_cgroup_shrink_node`
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:42:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161201184252.GP3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161201180953.GO3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
> >
> > Maybe. Right now, cond_resched_rcu_qs() gets a quiescent state to
> > the RCU core in less than one jiffy, with my other change, this becomes
> > a handful of jiffies depending on HZ and NR_CPUS. I expect this
> > increase to a handful of jiffies to be a non-event.
> >
> > After my upcoming patch, cond_resched() will get a quiescent state to
> > the RCU core in about ten seconds. While I am am not all that nervous
> > about the increase from less than a jiffy to a handful of jiffies,
> > increasing to ten seconds via cond_resched() does make me quite nervous.
> > Past experience indicates that someone's kernel will likely be fatally
> > inconvenienced by this magnitude of change.
> >
> > Or am I misunderstanding what you are proposing?
>
> No, that is indeed what I was proposing. Hurm.. OK let me ponder that a
> bit. There might be a few games we can play with !PREEMPT to avoid IPIs.
>
> Thing is, I'm slightly uncomfortable with de-coupling rcu-sched from
> actual schedule() calls.
OK, what is the source of your discomfort?
There are several intermediate levels of evasive action:
0. If there is another runnable task and certain other conditions
are met, cond_resched() will invoke schedule(), which will
provide an RCU quiescent state.
1. All cond_resched_rcu_qs() invocations increment the CPU's
rcu_qs_ctr per-CPU variable, which is treated by later
invocations of RCU core as a quiescent state. (I have
a patch queued that causes RCU to ignore changes to this
counter until the grace period is a few jiffies old.)
In this case, the rcu_node locks plus smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
provide the needed ordering.
2. If any cond_resched_rcu_qs() sees that an expedited grace
period is waiting on the current CPU, it invokes rcu_sched_qs()
to force RCU to see the quiescent state. (To your point,
rcu_sched_qs() is normally called from schedule(), but also
from the scheduling-clock interrupt when it interrupts
usermode or idle.)
Again, the rcu_node locks plus smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
provide the needed ordering.
3. If the grace period extends for more than 50 milliseconds
(by default, tunable), all subsequent cond_resched_rcu_qs()
invocations on that CPU turn into momentary periods of
idleness from RCU's viewpoint. (Atomically add 2 to the
dyntick-idle counter.)
Here, the atomic increment is surrounded by smp_mb__*_atomic()
to provide the needed ordering, which should be a good substitute
for actually passing through schedule().
4. If the grace period extends for more than 21 seconds (by default),
we emit an RCU CPU stall warning and then do a resched_cpu().
I am proposing also doing a resched_cpu() halfway to RCU CPU
stall-warning time.
5. An RCU-sched expedited grace period does a local resched_cpu()
from its IPI handler to force the CPU through a quiescent
state. (Yes, I could just invoke resched_cpu() from the
task orchestrating the expedited grace period, but this approach
allows more common code between RCU-preempt and RCU-sched
expedited grace periods.)
> > > In fact, by doing the IPI thing we get the entire cond_resched*()
> > > family, and we could add the should_resched() guard to
> > > cond_resched_rcu().
> >
> > So that cond_resched_rcu_qs() looks something like this, in order
> > to avoid the function call in the case where the scheduler has nothing
> > to do?
>
> I was actually thinking of this:
Oh! I had forgotten about cond_resched_rcu(), and thought you did a typo.
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 2d0c82e1d348..2dc7d8056b2a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -3374,9 +3374,11 @@ static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p)
> static inline void cond_resched_rcu(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) || !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - cond_resched();
> - rcu_read_lock();
> + if (should_resched(1)) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + cond_resched();
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + }
> #endif
> }
>
>
--
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: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Donald Buczek <buczek@molgen.mpg.de>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
dvteam@molgen.mpg.de, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks with `kswapd` and `mem_cgroup_shrink_node`
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:42:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161201184252.GP3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161201180953.GO3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
> >
> > Maybe. Right now, cond_resched_rcu_qs() gets a quiescent state to
> > the RCU core in less than one jiffy, with my other change, this becomes
> > a handful of jiffies depending on HZ and NR_CPUS. I expect this
> > increase to a handful of jiffies to be a non-event.
> >
> > After my upcoming patch, cond_resched() will get a quiescent state to
> > the RCU core in about ten seconds. While I am am not all that nervous
> > about the increase from less than a jiffy to a handful of jiffies,
> > increasing to ten seconds via cond_resched() does make me quite nervous.
> > Past experience indicates that someone's kernel will likely be fatally
> > inconvenienced by this magnitude of change.
> >
> > Or am I misunderstanding what you are proposing?
>
> No, that is indeed what I was proposing. Hurm.. OK let me ponder that a
> bit. There might be a few games we can play with !PREEMPT to avoid IPIs.
>
> Thing is, I'm slightly uncomfortable with de-coupling rcu-sched from
> actual schedule() calls.
OK, what is the source of your discomfort?
There are several intermediate levels of evasive action:
0. If there is another runnable task and certain other conditions
are met, cond_resched() will invoke schedule(), which will
provide an RCU quiescent state.
1. All cond_resched_rcu_qs() invocations increment the CPU's
rcu_qs_ctr per-CPU variable, which is treated by later
invocations of RCU core as a quiescent state. (I have
a patch queued that causes RCU to ignore changes to this
counter until the grace period is a few jiffies old.)
In this case, the rcu_node locks plus smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
provide the needed ordering.
2. If any cond_resched_rcu_qs() sees that an expedited grace
period is waiting on the current CPU, it invokes rcu_sched_qs()
to force RCU to see the quiescent state. (To your point,
rcu_sched_qs() is normally called from schedule(), but also
from the scheduling-clock interrupt when it interrupts
usermode or idle.)
Again, the rcu_node locks plus smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
provide the needed ordering.
3. If the grace period extends for more than 50 milliseconds
(by default, tunable), all subsequent cond_resched_rcu_qs()
invocations on that CPU turn into momentary periods of
idleness from RCU's viewpoint. (Atomically add 2 to the
dyntick-idle counter.)
Here, the atomic increment is surrounded by smp_mb__*_atomic()
to provide the needed ordering, which should be a good substitute
for actually passing through schedule().
4. If the grace period extends for more than 21 seconds (by default),
we emit an RCU CPU stall warning and then do a resched_cpu().
I am proposing also doing a resched_cpu() halfway to RCU CPU
stall-warning time.
5. An RCU-sched expedited grace period does a local resched_cpu()
from its IPI handler to force the CPU through a quiescent
state. (Yes, I could just invoke resched_cpu() from the
task orchestrating the expedited grace period, but this approach
allows more common code between RCU-preempt and RCU-sched
expedited grace periods.)
> > > In fact, by doing the IPI thing we get the entire cond_resched*()
> > > family, and we could add the should_resched() guard to
> > > cond_resched_rcu().
> >
> > So that cond_resched_rcu_qs() looks something like this, in order
> > to avoid the function call in the case where the scheduler has nothing
> > to do?
>
> I was actually thinking of this:
Oh! I had forgotten about cond_resched_rcu(), and thought you did a typo.
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 2d0c82e1d348..2dc7d8056b2a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -3374,9 +3374,11 @@ static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p)
> static inline void cond_resched_rcu(void)
> {
> #if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP) || !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
> - rcu_read_unlock();
> - cond_resched();
> - rcu_read_lock();
> + if (should_resched(1)) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + cond_resched();
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + }
> #endif
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-01 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <24c226a5-1a4a-173e-8b4e-5107a2baac04@molgen.mpg.de>
2016-11-08 12:22 ` INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks with `kswapd` and `mem_cgroup_shrink_node` Paul Menzel
2016-11-08 17:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-08 17:38 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-08 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-16 17:01 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-16 17:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-21 13:41 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-21 14:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-21 14:18 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-21 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-21 15:35 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-24 10:15 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-24 18:50 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-27 9:37 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-27 5:32 ` Christopher S. Aker
2016-11-27 9:19 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-28 11:04 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-28 12:26 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-28 12:26 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-30 10:28 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-30 10:28 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-30 11:09 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 11:09 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 11:43 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-30 11:43 ` Donald Buczek
2016-12-02 9:14 ` Donald Buczek
2016-12-02 9:14 ` Donald Buczek
2016-12-06 8:32 ` Donald Buczek
2016-12-06 8:32 ` Donald Buczek
2016-11-30 11:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 11:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 11:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 11:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 12:31 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-30 12:31 ` Paul Menzel
2016-11-30 14:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 14:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 13:19 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 13:19 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 14:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 16:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-30 16:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-30 17:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 17:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 17:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 17:05 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 17:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 17:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 17:34 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 17:34 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 17:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-30 17:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-30 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 5:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 5:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 12:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 12:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 16:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 16:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 16:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 18:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 18:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-12-01 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 18:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-01 18:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] <d6981bac-8e97-b482-98c0-40949db03ca3@kernelpanic.ru>
[not found] ` <20161124133019.GE3612@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <de88a72a-f861-b51f-9fb3-4265378702f1@kernelpanic.ru>
[not found] ` <20161125212000.GI31360@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20161128095825.GI14788@dhcp22.suse.cz>
[not found] ` <20161128105425.GY31360@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <3a4242cb-0198-0a3b-97ae-536fb5ff83ec@kernelpanic.ru>
[not found] ` <20161128143435.GC3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
2016-11-28 14:40 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-11-28 15:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-28 19:16 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-11-29 18:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 17:41 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-11-30 17:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 18:12 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-11-30 18:25 ` Michal Hocko
2016-11-30 18:26 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-12-01 18:10 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-12-01 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-01 19:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-02 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-02 9:37 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-02 13:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-02 13:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-02 16:39 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-12-02 16:39 ` Boris Zhmurov
2016-12-02 16:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-02 16:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-02 17:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-02 17:02 ` Michal Hocko
2016-12-02 17:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-12-02 17:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2016-11-30 19:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20161201184252.GP3924@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=buczek@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=dvteam@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.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.