From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Paul E. McKenney) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 05:49:13 -0700 Subject: RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this? In-Reply-To: <20170727143400.23e4d2b2@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20170726223658.GA27617@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170726.154540.150558937277891719.davem@davemloft.net> <20170726231505.GG3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170726.162200.1904949371593276937.davem@davemloft.net> <20170727014214.GH3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170727143400.23e4d2b2@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20170727124913.GL3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 02:34:00PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 18:42:14 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 04:22:00PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > > Indeed, that really wouldn't explain how we end up with a RCU stall > > > dump listing almost all of the cpus as having missed a grace period. > > > > I have seen stranger things, but admittedly not often. > > So the backtraces show the RCU gp thread in schedule_timeout. > > Are you sure that it's timeout has expired and it's not being scheduled, > or could it be a bad (large) timeout (looks unlikely) or that it's being > scheduled but not correctly noting gps on other CPUs? > > It's not in R state, so if it's not being scheduled at all, then it's > because the timer has not fired: Good point, Nick! Jonathan, could you please reproduce collecting timer event tracing? Thanx, Paul > [ 1984.628602] rcu_preempt kthread starved for 5663 jiffies! g1566 c1565 f0x0 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x1 > [ 1984.638153] rcu_preempt S 0 9 2 0x00000000 > [ 1984.643626] Call trace: > [ 1984.646059] [] __switch_to+0x90/0xa8 > [ 1984.651189] [] __schedule+0x19c/0x5d8 > [ 1984.656400] [] schedule+0x38/0xa0 > [ 1984.661266] [] schedule_timeout+0x124/0x218 > [ 1984.667002] [] rcu_gp_kthread+0x4fc/0x748 > [ 1984.672564] [] kthread+0xfc/0x128 > [ 1984.677429] [] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x50 >