From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@gmail.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@01.org,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [x86, locking/rwlocks, btrfs] INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:10:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5434026F.3070404@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141004050628.4613752a@as>
On 10/04/2014 06:06 AM, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 23:27:58 -0400
> Waiman Long<waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/2014 09:33 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>> Hi Waiman,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on commit
>>>
>>> bd01ec1a13f9a327950c8e3080096446c7804753 ("x86, locking/rwlocks: Enable qrwlocks on x86")
>>>
>>> +----------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>> | | 70af2f8a4f | bd01ec1a13 |
>>> +----------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>> | boot_successes | 3 | 2 |
>>> | boot_failures | 7 | 13 |
>>> | BUG:kernel_test_crashed | 7 | 8 |
>>> | INFO:rcu_sched_self-detected_stall_on_CPU | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:intel_idle | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:queue_write_lock_slowpath | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:queue_read_lock_slowpath | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:sys_imageblit_sysimgblt | 0 | 2 |
>>> | RIP:default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:memcpy | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:delay_tsc | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:cpu_startup_entry | 0 | 3 |
>>> | backtrace:do_fsync | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:SyS_fsync | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:normal_work_helper | 0 | 1 |
>>> | backtrace:vfs_write | 0 | 3 |
>>> | backtrace:SyS_write | 0 | 3 |
>>> | backtrace:do_sys_open | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:SyS_open | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:flush_to_ldisc | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:cpu_startup_entry | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:native_read_tsc | 0 | 2 |
>>> | RIP:rcu_eqs_exit_common | 0 | 1 |
>>> | INFO:rcu_sched_detected_stalls_on_CPUs/tasks | 0 | 1 |
>>> +----------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>>
>>>
>> The btrfs filesystem had problem using qrwlock. This was a known btrfs
>> problem in 3.16-rc1. The following patch by Chris should have fixed the
>> problem:
>>
>> > commit ea4ebde02e08558b020c4b61bb9a4c0fcf63028e
>> > Author: Chris Mason<clm@fb.com>
>> > Date: Thu Jun 19 14:16:52 2014 -0700
>> >
>> > Btrfs: fix deadlocks with trylock on tree nodes
>>
>> Was that patch included in your test?
>>
> That patch went in 3.16-rc2, so it can be assumed it was included in
> the test kernel (3.16.0)
The problem should be gone in 3.16.0. I was asking because the 2 commits
bd01ec1a13 and 70af2f8a4f are the two consecutive qrwlock patches. The
first one adds the code while the second one enables its use in x86. So
if you just compare these two commits, you will certainly see some
regressions in the test.
-Longman
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [x86, locking/rwlocks, btrfs] INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:10:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5434026F.3070404@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141004050628.4613752a@as>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3469 bytes --]
On 10/04/2014 06:06 AM, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 23:27:58 -0400
> Waiman Long<waiman.long@hp.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/2014 09:33 AM, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>>> Hi Waiman,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on commit
>>>
>>> bd01ec1a13f9a327950c8e3080096446c7804753 ("x86, locking/rwlocks: Enable qrwlocks on x86")
>>>
>>> +----------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>> | | 70af2f8a4f | bd01ec1a13 |
>>> +----------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>> | boot_successes | 3 | 2 |
>>> | boot_failures | 7 | 13 |
>>> | BUG:kernel_test_crashed | 7 | 8 |
>>> | INFO:rcu_sched_self-detected_stall_on_CPU | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:intel_idle | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:queue_write_lock_slowpath | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:queue_read_lock_slowpath | 0 | 4 |
>>> | RIP:sys_imageblit_sysimgblt | 0 | 2 |
>>> | RIP:default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:memcpy | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:delay_tsc | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:cpu_startup_entry | 0 | 3 |
>>> | backtrace:do_fsync | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:SyS_fsync | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:normal_work_helper | 0 | 1 |
>>> | backtrace:vfs_write | 0 | 3 |
>>> | backtrace:SyS_write | 0 | 3 |
>>> | backtrace:do_sys_open | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:SyS_open | 0 | 4 |
>>> | backtrace:flush_to_ldisc | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:cpu_startup_entry | 0 | 1 |
>>> | RIP:native_read_tsc | 0 | 2 |
>>> | RIP:rcu_eqs_exit_common | 0 | 1 |
>>> | INFO:rcu_sched_detected_stalls_on_CPUs/tasks | 0 | 1 |
>>> +----------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>>>
>>>
>> The btrfs filesystem had problem using qrwlock. This was a known btrfs
>> problem in 3.16-rc1. The following patch by Chris should have fixed the
>> problem:
>>
>> > commit ea4ebde02e08558b020c4b61bb9a4c0fcf63028e
>> > Author: Chris Mason<clm@fb.com>
>> > Date: Thu Jun 19 14:16:52 2014 -0700
>> >
>> > Btrfs: fix deadlocks with trylock on tree nodes
>>
>> Was that patch included in your test?
>>
> That patch went in 3.16-rc2, so it can be assumed it was included in
> the test kernel (3.16.0)
The problem should be gone in 3.16.0. I was asking because the 2 commits
bd01ec1a13 and 70af2f8a4f are the two consecutive qrwlock patches. The
first one adds the code while the second one enables its use in x86. So
if you just compare these two commits, you will certainly see some
regressions in the test.
-Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-07 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-03 13:33 [x86, locking/rwlocks, btrfs] INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU Fengguang Wu
2014-10-03 13:33 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-10-04 3:27 ` Waiman Long
2014-10-04 3:27 ` Waiman Long
2014-10-04 10:06 ` Chuck Ebbert
2014-10-04 10:06 ` Chuck Ebbert
2014-10-07 15:10 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2014-10-07 15:10 ` Waiman Long
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=5434026F.3070404@hp.com \
--to=waiman.long@hp.com \
--cc=cebbert.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.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.