From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Break RCU locks based on jiffies.
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:01:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181214210126.GX4170@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181214123111.266cae10f71ea6b277d634c6@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:31:11PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:17:38 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> > check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks() is currently calling rcu_lock_break()
> > for every 1024 threads. But check_hung_task() is very slow if printk()
> > was called, and is very fast otherwise. If many threads within some 1024
> > threads called printk(), the RCU grace period might be extended enough
> > to trigger RCU stall warnings. Therefore, calling rcu_lock_break() for
> > every some fixed jiffies will be safer.
> >
> > --- a/kernel/hung_task.c
> > +++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
> > * is disabled during the critical section. It also controls the size of
> > * the RCU grace period. So it needs to be upper-bound.
> > */
> > -#define HUNG_TASK_BATCHING 1024
> > +#define HUNG_TASK_LOCK_BREAK (HZ / 10)
>
> This won't work correctly if rcu_cpu_stall_timeout is set to something
> stupidly small. Perhaps is would be better to make this code aware of
> the current rcu_cpu_stall_timeout setting?
Good point.
However, the reason that I wasn't worried because any settings of
rcu_cpu_stall_timeout less than 3 seconds are cheerfully bumped up to
3 seconds, so we have a safety factor of 30 as things stand.
I could export the minimum, though, if that would be helpful.
Thanx, Paul
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-14 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-14 15:17 [PATCH] kernel/hung_task.c: Break RCU locks based on jiffies Tetsuo Handa
2018-12-14 15:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2018-12-14 20:31 ` Andrew Morton
2018-12-14 21:01 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
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=20181214210126.GX4170@linux.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
/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.